Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Hospitals (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Roy Beggs: I appreciate the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to focus on hospital provision in Northern Ireland. Many of my colleagues wish to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, and you will be as relieved as the Minister to learn that I do not intend to prevent him from having reasonable time to respond.
Everyone in Northern Ireland can expect to use the hospital services available to us at some time or other. We are all concerned to maintain the excellence of our hospital provision. In 1998, the national health service in Northern Ireland will be 50 years old. It came into being under a Unionist Government, which was committed in the post-war era to the improvement of social welfare. My colleagues and I welcome the commitment given by the Government to increase expenditure on the health of the nation year on year, and would welcome a similar announcement from the Opposition to ensure appropriate future funding levels for Northern Ireland.
It should be recognised that Northern Ireland has special problems as one of the least well-off regions of the United Kingdom with specific regional problems, such as an unusually high rate of heart disease and a high number of patients suffering from cancer. Those problems should be borne in mind when funding decisions are made.
The cash crisis and the inadequacy of present funding of the health service in Northern Ireland received a positive response from the Minister exactly a week ago when Ulster's cash-hit health service received additional funding of £5.2 million to be shared among the four health boards to help them buy a range of elective services. Some of the patients, who have been waiting too long for operations, will now receive long-awaited surgery, but waiting lists are still too large and patients have to wait too long for the problem to be resolved by piecemeal funding in response to all-party representation or press and media attention directed at the Department of Health and the Minister.
We welcome the Minister's response, but I hope that he will acknowledge that Members of Parliament who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have been pressed forcefully by their constituents, who are enraged to learn that surgery was on offer and was being sold to patients in the Republic of Ireland while British citizens who have paid taxes and national insurance were left on

waiting lists because health authorities and fundholders could not pay for the operations to which their patients were entitled. Many are afraid to be named lest they suffer further delay. My colleagues and I want to see such future funding as is necessary to eliminate unreasonable waiting times for any patients in Northern Ireland. When the waiting lists have been cleared, nobody would object to the expert services still available being sold on to relieve the suffering of patients from outside Northern Ireland.
Further evidence of crisis in hospital provision was highlighted in the Belfast Telegraph on 6 February. The article, which was entitled "Cancer unit in crisis", highlighted the threat that existed for Northern Ireland cancer patients at the Province's regional cancer centre because of the overwork and maximum use being made of the special diagnostic simulator machine at Belvoir Park. It is the only one of its kind in the Province and had had problems earlier this year. There were genuine fears of a more serious breakdown that would have delayed urgently needed diagnosis and treatment.
Cancer patients and their families throughout Northern Ireland are deeply grateful to the anonymous donor whose generous gift of £400,000 will provide a new diagnostic simulator. We all appreciate the fact that its £250,000 installation costs have been made available by the Department of Health, which has been shamed into finding that money by the generosity of the anonymous donor. The investment could save lives, because earlier diagnosis and treatment will become available when the second simulator is in use.
The perception of a growing crisis in our health and social services provision in Northern Ireland has been expressed by patients, medical practitioners, trade unionists, and by the Royal College of Nursing, the largest professional working group in the NHS. The public at large want to see the nurses in our hospitals and those who are employed elsewhere in the health service properly rewarded for their care and devotion, without long-drawn-out pay negotiations.
My constituents in East Antrim are dismayed because no improvement was made to the A8 from Larne to Ballynure, before Moyle hospital at Larne was closed. No improvements to the road have been made since the hospital closed, either. Are any improvements even being considered, either now or in the future, to make access to the Antrim hospital faster and safer for motorists and ambulances travelling from the Larne borough area?
What assurance can the Minister give that congestion on the A2 between Carrickfergus and Belfast will be relieved in the not too distant future? Again, that would provide faster and safer access for my constituents in Islandmagee, Whitehead, Carrickfergus, Greenisland and Newtownabbey to the Whiteabbey and Belfast hospitals. Can the Minister assure me that he will continue to support the retention and upgrading of the existing services at Whiteabbey hospital in my constituency, which must not be run down in order to fund the failure to rationalise hospital provision in Belfast?
The most recent figures for admissions to Northern Ireland hospitals, published in columns 443–44 of Hansard on 18 November 1996, show how long patients had waited for admission. It should be of concern to all of us that although by March 1996 progress had been made to clear up most of the backlog of patients who had waited more than two years, 800 patients had still waited longer than 18 months at that time.
Can the Minister report significant progress over the past year in reducing the number of patients who have been on waiting lists for more than 18 months? Is the inability of health boards and fundholders to pay for operations creating another backlog of non-urgent operations for the future? Is the failure to fund the number of operations that our hospitals are capable of carrying out part of a deliberate strategy designed to reduce the number of acute hospitals in Northern Ireland?
Can the Minister assure us that patients who do not wish to be placed in mixed-sex wards will have their wishes respected, and will be allowed to retain their dignity and their right to privacy in single-sex wards?
Will the Minister, together with representatives of the Northern Ireland ambulance service and the hospital trusts that serve my constituents and others, set aside some time on a regular basis to discuss matters with the chief executives, and to examine for himself examples of the appalling incidents that have occurred and keep occurring, causing distress and suffering to young and elderly patients alike?
The Minister would not normally have sight of those horror stories, because in such cases my colleagues and I now write to the chief executives of the appropriate bodies, but a debate such as this affords us the opportunity to raise them in the Chamber.
Why should a pensioner who fell and broke her thighbone on Friday night have to lie in agony on a hospital bed until Monday before being transferred to Belfast city hospital for treatment? Are there no proper facilities for treating patients, whether pensioners or not, at weekends? There was a good final outcome to the case, and the patient made a good recovery.
Is not the following story a disgraceful example of the falling level of provision in our health service? An 80-year-old woman suffering from an acute kidney infection was, on her doctor's advice, conveyed by emergency ambulance to hospital at 4.24 in the afternoon. She was accompanied by her husband, and was wearing a coat and slippers but no stockings. She was discharged at 5.40 and informed that there was no ambulance to take her home.
The patient and her husband, who was also 80, waited while a nurse tried to contact a relative, but gave up and set off on their own. There was no taxi rank in the vicinity of the hospital, and they walked a considerable distance on a freezing cold night to a railway station where they waited for an hour to make part of their journey by train, and then found a taxi in which to complete the journey on that wintry night, arriving home two and a half hours after the woman had been discharged from hospital.
Last year, a man took his six-year-old grandson, who had broken his arm, to Antrim hospital. The waiting time for an X-ray was an hour, after which he was advised that the staff present could not set the child's arm and the grandfather would have to take him to the Royal Victoria hospital.
Unfortunately, six or seven weeks ago, the same man's eight-year-old grandson had to be taken from Larne to the Antrim hospital, where, after an X-ray, a fractured ankle was diagnosed. Again, there was no one present to set the child's ankle and the grandfather had to drive to the Royal Victoria hospital.
I hope that the Minister will take time to examine those cases and that, even though there were apologies and excuses, he will ensure that there is no repetition of such incidents.
Not everything in Northern Ireland is gloom and doom, however. I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Londonderry-born Dr. Peter O'Hare and Gill Elliot from Belfast—two Ulster scientists whose recent breakthrough has been hailed as one of the most important in gene therapy, and a major step on the way to combating several diseases, including cancer.
I hope that there will be close collaboration between those involved in cancer research at Queen's university Belfast, the new state-of-the-art cancer research unit of the Ulster Cancer Foundation at Belfast city hospital, and the Marie Curie research institute in Surrey, where the characteristics of the mystery protein VP22 were discovered for the first time.
Will the Minister robustly seek from the Government financial support to take forward that valuable work, and avoid placing further and increasing burdens on charities and fund-raisers that are already competing with the national lottery?
We have the expertise in Northern Ireland to have the best hospital services in the United Kingdom, or the world for that matter. That can be achieved only by increased funding, better use of resources, savings on administration and adequate community care funding for those discharged after a short time in acute hospitals. I urge the Minister, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, to seek that funding from Government.

Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on securing this debate. It is unfortunate that the debate coincides with what will probably be the last plenary session of the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland before the pre-election recess; that explains why hon. Members from other Northern Ireland parties are not present. One of the advantages of having a somewhat larger party is that we have greater depth of resources and can afford to be in two places at one time.
We must bear in mind some general points about hospital provision. I hope that the Minister agrees that the Government have an obligation to deliver to the people of Northern Ireland the same quality of health care as is available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and agrees that, because of our differing circumstances, to achieve that may require more expenditure in Northern Ireland than elsewhere.
I regret to say that Northern Ireland has, generally speaking, a much less healthy population than the average English region—that problem is not confined to Northern Ireland: there are regional differences elsewhere as well—and the difference will have to be reflected in the services provided.
Northern Ireland has a lower density of population, so one cannot say that it needs the same provision as a region in southern England with a population of 1.6 million. Our greater geographical area and sparser population impose additional burdens on services, and an apparently higher level of provision will be needed to obtain the same level of service. One will also have to take account of the nature


of the road network. Our roads vary in quality, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim referred to some of the difficulties that his constituents encounter as a result.
Those general points will have to be borne in mind when we consider what appears to be the Department's fundamental strategy, which is to close comparatively small hospitals in order to concentrate on half a dozen acute hospitals to provide for the health needs of the whole of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister believe that that is the right strategy and that it takes account of the particular needs of the people of Northern Ireland—or is it driven by the needs and desires of administrators and consultants? That is a fundamental question.
We must also ask whether the policy of closing the comparatively small hospitals is a good thing in itself. When the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Secretary of State for Wales, he discovered that there were no significant financial savings in that policy and he reversed it in Wales. Those hospitals should be able to deliver a service. There is no reason why centres serving populations of 20,000 or so should not be able to sustain a certain level of provision.
The closures involve not only significant transitional costs but a significant loss in terms of recent investment. The Minister will know that my concern relates largely to the situation in Banbridge and the recent closure of its hospital. One of the disadvantages of that decision is that the investment in surgical wards a few years ago has largely been written off.
The way in which policy has been implemented in Northern Ireland recently seems to me to involve significant waste and to ignore the geographical realities, which do not always coincide with trust boundaries. Banbridge hospital was part of the Craigavon area hospital trust and a satellite to the main hospital.
The Minister has decided that Craigavon area hospital will have to provide for the need that would otherwise have been provided for at Banbridge, but that does not always take account of the geography. It is not all that easy or convenient to travel from Banbridge to Craigavon; the roads on that route are less convenient than the major dual carriageway that runs roughly north to south from Newry to Lisburn and Belfast.
Consequently, the closure at Banbridge does not assist the hospital trust and is likely to involve a transfer of resources out of the area. The nature of the road network also creates problems in the provision of an ambulance service. When the hospital is withdrawn from Banbridge there will obviously be a greater need for a better ambulance service. One need not labour the point that speed is crucial in terms of people's prospects, especially in the case of heart attacks, for example. The necessary speed of response is simply not provided in Banbridge, and especially the rural part.
We get assurances from the trust that ambulances are available and response times adequate, but we hear far too many stories from constituents who have had to wait a long time for ambulances. I am not satisfied that the reports from Ministers and administrators give us a correct and accurate picture of the situation. There is a general lack of confidence in the ambulance provision in the Banbridge area, and that needs to be addressed seriously.
The Minister will know of the alternatives proposed by Banbridge council, which has tried to be realistic. It would much prefer the hospital to be kept open, but it has been prepared seriously to consider other ways of delivering a good service, through developing what is referred to as a polyclinic or community hospital. That would build on the present out-patient services and try to provide as much of the service that people need as close to them as possible.
I am glad to see the Minister nodding in agreement, but unfortunately the only promise that I am aware of his having made so far is simply to continue the existing out-patient services. I hope that he will go much further than that.
Banbridge presented proposals for a polyclinic to the Department some time ago, but what response has been made and what action taken? No clear decision has emerged, and instead we shall have further delay as a result of the decision to explore the possibilities of the private finance initiative. I appreciate the fact that the Minister is working with financial problems, and that PFI is sometimes regarded as a way round those, but it means a further delay.
Bringing in PFI could delay provision by a further two years and that is not satisfactory. Many people regard its introduction with distaste because they see it as a roundabout way of transferring the advantages of the site, its development potential, and the profit that will come from it, to the private sector.
As for the strategy that is supposed to underlie the Department's approach in the maintaining of six acute hospitals, I fear that what is happening to health provision in my area will undermine the service. As I said earlier, it is unlikely that, following the closure of Banbridge hospital, all the patients will travel to Craigavon. Given the geography of the area, there is a strong possibility that many will go to Daisy Hill, Lagan Valley or even Belfast—for the prospects of Daisy Hill and Lagan Valley are not completely unclouded. Some resources will be transferred from Banbridge to other hospital trusts. Craigavon needs the finance that comes from Banbridge; it cannot cope with the present situation. I am worried that the future of Craigavon area hospital may be undermined.
As was said earlier, the primary concern now seems to be the convenience of consultants and administrators rather than the needs of patients. Moreover, there is an overall lack of finance. The present Minister may not be able to remedy that, but it is a serious problem. Despite what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there has not been an overall increase in resources for the health service in Northern Ireland, although substantial additional resources have been made available in England and Wales. Indeed, the Government's current expenditure plans show significant real increases for England and Wales as a whole, while Northern Ireland's total block grant for the current financial year shows a decrease of 0.5 per cent. in real terms. That is not a large figure, but it is a decrease in real terms. There are also problems relating to allocation within the block, and other problems arising from that.
Were it not for the pressure exerted by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we would not have had the desperately needed extra injections of finance that we have had in recent weeks, but we need more. There should


be a fresh look at financial provision for health in Northern Ireland, so that we obtain the service that we require. It must be acknowledged that, because of the geographical and health factors that I have mentioned, Northern Ireland needs more expenditure than England and Wales.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate on health issues. My hon. Friends have dealt, to a large extent, with individual examples—specific constituency issues—but they have also touched on principles. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the PFI. I believe that some large firms in Northern Ireland would find the task that they have been asked to undertake too small for their own capacity, in terms of the time taken up by consultation and planning and the lack of any attempt to press ahead with major issues. I am thinking of firms such as Mivan in south Antrim. I wonder whether we have sufficiently thought out the issues involved in some of the schemes that are considered in Northern Ireland.
I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) to the dedicated skill of those who provide our health service. We must bear it in mind that some of the problems that we are experiencing arise from the tremendous success of that service. For instance, people who had cardiac surgery 10 or 14 years ago are now returning for more, and the same applies to those who have had orthopaedic operations in the past. After years of useful, healthy life, those people now find that they need further surgery. I do not want to minimise the work that has been done, and I feel that the entrepreneurial and inventive skills involved should be recognised.
Having said that, I must add that, as the Minister will know from his own figures, informed observers are criticising the lack of spending on Northern Ireland's health care. The quality of the service was at its peak in 1992. The Minister can heave a sigh of relief: he was not responsible for such matters then, and cannot be held responsible for the whole downturn which has followed. Let me ask him, however, about the split in the spend in the top slicing. How much do the Department and the health management executive keep to cover overall demand? How much, for example, has been spent on independent consultants? How much time has been taken up? Who, in that sense, manages? There seem to be many different fingers in the pot.
Are we looking for a real remedy for the problems of hospital provision, or just a repair job to tide us over? There is a tendency to employ more consultancy and management staff, rather than introduce better technology. I have been interested in the issue of medical records for some years, and I believe that one of the difficulties in the past has been the fact that consultants have been blamed for not bringing patients in when, in fact, the medical records were at fault. Given that £1 million may have to be spent to provide a hospital building, or part of a building, to house medical records, would not a good computer be cheaper, take up less space and provide the answers much faster? I raise that point because it has been brought to my attention.
I understand that schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 reserves powers for the Department, which may determine whether it might be impractical to negotiate or contract for certain services. How often has it done that? Is it true, for example, that the Eastern health and social services board pays 23 per cent., compared with the average of 50 per cent. paid by health authorities in Great Britain? Is there a proper spread of finances?
The other night, I was thinking about a cause celebre—a missionary strategy in an African country years ago. Excellent nurses were sent out to that country, but within a year each returned broken. Finally, the council of the sending body decided to look at what was happening on the ground, and realised that there was a senior nurse there who should have been dispatched long since.
Are we dispatching the right people? The Ulster hospital has lost two chairmen and one chief executive. Is it a fact that in 1995 its trust board asked for permission to do consultancy work so that it could get to the heart of what was happening in the hospital and that that permission was given only in 1996, a year later? Why did it take so long if there was obviously a problem?
On contracting, was the Ulster hospital unique or was the problem reflected throughout the Province? Contracts for 1995–96 were not worked out until November-December 1995. Even for this year, 1996–97, it was June before they were finalised. Is that not one of the reasons why there has been a backlog, which has caused problems? Did not the Royal Victoria hospital have vacancies and provide services outwith Northern Ireland?
I do not criticise any hospital in Northern Ireland for providing services for people outwith Northern Ireland, in Great Britain or, for that matter, in the Republic, provided that the money follows the patient. However, with better contracting, would it not have been possible to deal with the GP fundholders who claim that they sought to get patients treated in the Royal but were told that there was no provision? Marginal costs—or was it done at full cost?—were provided for patients from the Republic. As far as I can remember, 900 cardiac operations in the Royal should be done at full cost, leaving about 300 at marginal cost. Would it not have been better, when it was realised that there was demand, to have averaged that out better? Does the Minister want to intervene?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): indicated dissent

Rev. Martin Smyth: It would have been better to average things out so that both fundholders and boards pay the same price, rather than playing with purchasers. We must remember that the Royal is the only provider of cardiac surgery in Northern Ireland. Would it not have been a better use of resources to use the full potential complement? Is it not also a fact that the University hospital of Wales produced a report on the Ulster hospital? That was certainly requested by the trust, but it was commissioned by the Department. Should there not have been consultations involving the trust concerned, the Department and the Minister before final decisions were taken?
I have had a letter from the Minister—as I am sure other hon. Members have—advising me of the changes that are taking place and of the amalgamation of the


Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals health and social services trust. Are there any grounds for hope that the confidence expressed in the letter will be borne out? Given that the management executive was not previously prepared to put in a better team of management and support the trust board, is there any likelihood that changes will occur now?
I come to a question in which the Minister will appreciate I have a deep interest, as one who has supported the long-delayed rationalisation of the Royal and Belfast City trusts. Plans were on the drawing board at least 30 years, if not 50 years, ago. The City has sketches of what was planned. There was an imaginative idea for a tunnel to connect the City and the Royal to ensure the best use of resources. For various reasons, that has been dropped, but the Department rightly decided to go ahead again, and there have been three studies. Each hospital would automatically lose some of its provision, but, as they are 10 minutes away from each other, I do not believe that that is an insuperable problem.
A charter of excellence was granted to the City casualty and emergency unit, but it is to close. I understand why the Royal should be retained; it has the neurosurgical unit and it should be the regional trauma centre for Northern Ireland. I have no difficulty with that, but why the delay in going ahead with something that I believe rationally minded people will understand? I equally understand that sectional interests will be involved, but surely the McKenna report was clear about the provision of maternity services at the City. Does the Minister accept that there will be a drag on the health trust if the facilities and plant that are available in the wards in the tower block are not used purposefully? One has only to bear in mind the concept of return on capital to understand what I mean.
I cannot accept the arguments that are presented for the Royal site. It is true that the money needed immediately to improve the Royal's maternity buildings would be marginally less than would be required for adaptation of the tower site. However, a few years down the road, the cry will go up that we need new maternity provision on the Royal site when we already have facilities on the City site.
Cardiac specialists and others tell us that they must be situated conveniently close to the maternity hospital. What happens in Southampton, which has a fine medical school and fine cardiac provision? Women there are often sent to the community hospital at Basingstoke to have their babies. That is not 10 minutes down the road. Some of the arguments for having everything on the Royal site are false.
I must now speak specifically as the Member for Belfast, South. In considering the arguments about employment prospects in west Belfast, I remind the Minister that the Mater Infirmorum hospital is in north Belfast and that a fair number of people travel from west Belfast to have their children there. North-west Belfast will have two sets of maternity provision. We will lose the centre of excellence that has been at the City hospital for years. This year, some 2,700 to 2,800 children were born in the City, which has excellent facilities. I urge the Minister to remove the indecision that has so often been a hindrance. I sympathise with Ministers who have to make such decisions, because the clamouring voices come

from all angles. However, I ask the Minister to remember that south Belfast has higher female unemployment than any other part of Northern Ireland.
I understand that the Belfast City Hospital health and social services trust has asked for clear guidance on whether there has been unfair discrimination. One can have fair discrimination: sometimes we have to decide what we are going to do, and discrimination means making a judgment. However, there can be unfair discrimination. For example, the public dividend capital required in the first year was reclaimed by the Department from the City trust in the second year of operation, but not from the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals health and social services trust. The City trust paid £1.4 million more in dividend for the year 1994–95 than did the Royal group. As I understand it, the Royal was a trust first. There are issues that have to be faced. Hon. Members have local interests, but we still want the excellent regional services, to which reference has been made, to be retained in the Royal hospitals and the Belfast City to serve all of Northern Ireland. There are specific times when we must decide where some of those services are to be sited.

Mr. William Ross: This is an important debate. We are asking the Minister where we are trying to go with hospital provision in Northern Ireland. It has a long history related to advances in medical science and to the geographical location of hospitals. In the old days, single-handed consultants were willing to do everything whereas now a massive team is needed to do anything. Sometimes one wonders whether all the changes that have been made were as wise as they might have been.
Enormous advances have been made in medical science. There have also been tremendous changes in transportation, with the improved road network and all the rest of it. There has been a quantum leap in doctors' expectations of the conditions in which they have to operate. Above all, there has been a tremendous centralising influence on hospital provision in Northern Ireland, driven mainly by the medical profession and advances in medical skills. The concept of providing a certain number of acute hospitals on specified sites has been with us for many years. I do not disagree with it. We need a range of hospital provision. However, we appreciate that, for rare and difficult conditions requiring heart surgery or neurosurgery, we shall only ever have a regional service based in Belfast.
The truth is that someone living within 10 or 15 miles of Belfast will receive a much better service than someone living in Enniskillen or Londonderry, because of the travel times and distances involved. It is financially and practically impossible to provide specialist skills in every corner of the Province. That is a problem not only for Northern Ireland but for the rest of the United Kingdom.
In Belfast city, there is a high concentration of hospital beds and expertise. There are many hospitals within a few minutes, travel of each other. That is not the situation elsewhere. Coming from the Six, I have to say that many decisions have to be made, some of which have never been properly made. One of those hard decisions revolves around north Belfast, which, as we all know, is protected by Act of Parliament. It is pretty well impossible to do


anything with it, so I suspect that it will be a rock in the torrent of change for ever. It is a decision with which the Minister will have an enormous number of difficulties, whoever sits in his hot seat down the coming years after the general election. Hospital provision in Belfast has a domino effect on the location of acute hospitals in Northern Ireland. We cannot continue dodging the difficulties for ever.
Huge sums have been spent on acute hospitals in Northern Ireland over the years. I have here the somewhat dated Northern Ireland expenditure plans, published a year ago; it is rather a pity that we do not have the up-to-date version for the debate. The plans show that expenditure has been set aside of £10 million on the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children, £9 million on remedial works on the Craigavon area hospital and £43 million on the Causeway hospital, for which I am particularly grateful to the Minister, especially as I understand that the tenders were received yesterday. We hope that the plan can go ahead.
The plans also show £64 million to £65 million of expenditure on the Royal Victoria and £39 million on redevelopment of Altnagelvin area hospital, following £7 million on recladding that hospital. By any standards, those are huge sums of necessary capital expenditure. We are grateful to the Minister and the Government for finding such sums, but there is the problem of travel times to those hospitals and the provision that will be made in them. Those sums are not found out of thin air. The expenditure has downstream consequences. Antrim hospital is up and running. Causeway hospital has been started after 35 or 40 years. There are geographical considerations and the problem of the smaller satellite hospitals which revolve around those acute centres. The Government are sometimes not quite honest and forthright enough to say to people that, once provision A is made, provision B will be diminished or hospitals may close.
Let us consider the consequences of Altnagelvin down the years. A series of small hospitals scattered over the city of Londonderry and surrounding areas out as far as the Roe valley and Limavady are closing. I wonder what will be the consequence of the huge expenditure on the acute hospital in the long term. At the end of the day, hospitals are not provided for the convenience of the medical staff; they are provided for the benefit of the patients. Sometimes, that fundamental fact of basic need vanishes into the bog of hospital provision and the arguments on how well we can provide high-quality care on a particular site. Travel times are of great importance, especially in cardiac cases and for those injured in severe accidents involving brain or spinal injury.
To return to my local interests, I should like to highlight a problem in the provision of cancer services and follow-on treatment at the Causeway hospital. The Minister will be aware of the horror stories that we always hear of individuals getting into an ambulance or other form of transport early in the morning, travelling 50, 60 or 70 miles to receive treatment and then travelling all the way back. To put it mildly, that is very difficult to put up with.
We need to provide follow-on treatment as close as possible to the cancer patient's home. For that reason, I and the medical staff in and around the Causeway site are worried by the reports that much of the cancer provision

for the whole Northern board area will be in Antrim. People in Antrim say, "Oh, well, it will be mainly in Antrim, but there will be something at the Causeway site." We want to know now what services will be provided at the Causeway hospital. There seems to be a drift all the time towards centralisation. Fifty miles is a long way for someone who is ill and finds it difficult to travel even a short distance. I hope that the Minister will take a personal interest in the matter and see what can be done about it.
It is not all doom and gloom with regard to hospital provision. We have witnessed an astonishing drop in acute hospital beds in the period covered by the document from 5,634 to under 5,000. That was achieved in the years 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1995. In the same period, hospital admissions rose from 265,000 to 315,000, which is a huge increase. The increase in day care cases, from 48,000 to nearly 90,000, has been even more remarkable. Those bright spots show the benefits that accrue from advances in medical science. We all welcome that, but where does that lead us regarding hospital provision in 10 or 15 years' time? I know that the Minister is neither a prophet nor a dishonourable prophet, but perhaps he can make an educated guess about such future hospital provision in Northern Ireland.
One problem, which is associated with the general lower standard of health in Northern Ireland, means that Northern Ireland and Wales are battling it out as to which will be the worst region for waiting lists in the United Kingdom. I wonder when we will reduce our waiting lists to the Scottish level, which is remarkably good compared with those of the other three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. Scotland has done very well, and perhaps we should consider the methods employed by the Scottish Office to see what can be done to improve the health care of our people.
I am also concerned to note that, in the period covered by the expenditure plans and priorities, the number engaged in administration has increased by about 2,000, while the number of home helps has fallen from 3,200 to under 2,000. The care of our aged people presents a serious problem, not least because there are more and more of them with each passing year. Those carers are not necessarily in better health than their charges. I support the concept of care in the community and care in one's own home. It is extremely bad for old people to be taken out of their familiar surroundings and bunged somewhere far away from their family and friends. That option should be the port of last resort. It should be made available only to those who are so incapable of looking after themselves that they need nursing care. There are a lot of people who reach that stage.
Care at home is not cheap, especially when there is no family available to provide it, or even when they can. I have looked after aged relations with dementia, so I am aware that the burden placed on the family of the carer is unbelievable. I hope that the Minister will take steps to provide increased respite care for the folk who need it—there are a lot of them.
I am also concerned about care in the community for those who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped in one way or another. It is a dangerous process to move some of those people out on to the streets because they are incapable of caring for themselves.
I shall conclude shortly, because I know that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman are itching to get to their feet—one to assault and the other to defend. I am


concerned about the incidence of smoking and alcohol consumption among young people. I believe that changes in diet and way of life are generational and that they pay rich dividends. The mother is the most likely person to influence the diet of youngsters. I suggest to the Minister, therefore, that young women should be targeted more at schools so that they are better educated and better trained about the provision of a healthy diet for families. Some people may think that is sexist, but the reality is that it is women who determine the diet in the home. They need more and more proper training. That is true of young women not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom.
There should be more education on the dangers of smoking, never mind drugs and the rest of it, as well as on the dangers of alcohol. That is why I object to the changes that are constantly made to make alcohol more readily available every day of the week. We are getting to the situation where society is floating on an ocean of alcohol. Although I understand that those alcohol sales may benefit the Chancellor in the immediate term, I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and all the community will suffer in the long run. If anything could be done to educate people against the dangers of excess consumption of alcohol, it would be all to the good, because there is far too much drinking in Northern Ireland, never mind elsewhere.

Mr. Jim Dowd: The Minister seems surprised that I have anything to say. I appreciate that his engagements in Northern Ireland may mean that he is not au fait with how the extended Adjournment debates on a Wednesday morning work. I guarantee to leave him the bulk of the remaining time in which to reply.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on arranging the debate, which is timely and important given the severe difficulties that many hospitals throughout Northern Ireland have faced recently, and continue to face. It is worth recalling that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has reminded us that other engagements mean that other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland are unable to attend the debate. Hospital provision concerns every hon. Member from Northern Ireland, from every part of the political spectrum, largely because it is of such deep concern to their constituents.
The problems were presaged by the cuts in the health budget last year. The Royal Victoria, Ulster and Mater hospitals, and those in the Causeway and Green Park trusts, have been the most seriously affected—6,000 operations and 55,000 out-patient appointments have been cancelled since the summer.
The problems became so serious that the Royal Group in particular made arrangements to cut a further 1,700 operations and to offer that capacity to fundholding general practitioners. Because of that, the Department of Health and Social Services managed by some mysterious process, which I suspect may involve the 1997–98 budget, to find an additional £3.3 million for the Royal Victoria and Ulster hospitals. As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, the final figure is likely to be £5.2 million. The final irony is that it may not be possible to spend that money in the remaining few weeks of the current financial year.
The difficulties have their origins in a combination of the NHS reforms that have been pursued by the Government and this year's cut of about 3 per cent. in the

health budget. Even if the House takes the most generous view of the Minister's assertion that that contains a 1.5 per cent. efficiency saving, we are still left with the reality of a 1.5 per cent. service reduction in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has experienced cuts of at least that scale.
In fairness, the Minister has never attempted to hide the facts. As the June edition of the Nursing Standard quoted him:
'As a Minister I have to come clean and tell you that efficiency savings are just not possible … Therefore I acknowledge that there will be cuts in services and I don't like it any more than you do.' Mr. Moss, addressing the first conference of the RCN management association in Northern Ireland, added:`As a Minister I can't stand over cuts like that for too long.' However, he insisted he would not resign over the matter.
That is precisely what happened—cuts were made but no resignation was forthcoming.
The cuts are obvious to all involved in the delivery of health care in Northern Ireland. A recent report from the British Medical Association spelt out the difficulties, and noted that the Northern Ireland Consultants and Specialists Committee had stated:
Efficiency savings are cuts by another name and this constant haemorrhaging of funds has seriously weakened health care in the Province. We were disturbed to learn that some hospitals are having to restrict operations for non-urgent cases and that in others there is little money available to buy new equipment in order to meet efficiency targets.
We intend to take our findings to the Minister and the Chief Medical Officer in the hope that the current round will not be so harsh that it impedes good clinical practice. Clearly, the hospitals in the Province cannot sustain another round of imposed efficiency cuts.
The story is there to be read in the waiting list figures, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) highlighted. Waiting lists overall grew 2 per cent. in England in the 12 months up to September 1996; the comparable figure in Northern Ireland was 13. During the same period, the number of people waiting more than 12 months fell by 40 per cent. in England but increased by 75 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Those are not figures, but people waiting for treatment and care, and they are still waiting today.
The most corrosive of the Tory reforms has been the wholly artificial internal market, which has set hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor, replaced co-operation with competition and fragmented decision making, making strategic planning much more difficult. It has distorted the relationship with patients, as the primacy of contracting clashes with the best interests of the patient, and produced a system where price too often takes precedence over quality. It has generated an explosion of unnecessary bureaucracy, with individual contracts and the pricing of individual items of surgical procedure producing an avalanche of paper throughout the system. Most damaging of all, it has led to the substantial inequity that is undermining the cardinal NHS principle of equality of access.
Experience throughout the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland specifically, has brought to light innumerable cases where the likelihood of receiving acute or secondary treatment has become dependent on the management arrangements of the patient's general practitioner rather than medical priority. The chief executive of the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental


Hospitals health and social services trust, Mr. William McKee, when announcing the reductions in the Royal in the summer, said as much. He was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph as saying:
We can only provide services where the Health Board or fundholding GP is providing finance. This means that where a person lives and whether or not the GP is a fundholder
will
determine who we … treat.
The chief executive of the Eastern health and social services board, Dr. Kilbane, had to write to all the acute trusts in the area last autumn, following a conference of GP Forum, which represents fundholders and non-fundholders. He wrote:
A very strong view was expressed at the meeting that General Practitioners were increasingly concerned at the use of criteria other than clinical need for choosing the order in which patients in the Board's area are treated. The Forum asked that the Board should draw to Trust Chief Executives attention and that they in turn should convey this view to clinical staff, that clinical need
alone
should be the criterion which governs the order in which patients are treated and the treatments they receive.
I would be obliged if you would draw this strongly held view to the attention of appropriate … staff'.
There we have it; a patently two-tier system—evidence of which is now incontrovertible—and the latest revelations from the Royal Victoria hospital, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim, merely provide further proof.
The development of the internal market has not only distorted priorities, but wasted a great deal of money that should go to front-line patient care. We are well aware that the last thing that is needed is the destructive, dogmatic process that has been the Government's hallmark. We are keen to engineer change—health service professionals want changes—but we are fully conscious that the only way to construct enduring and beneficial advance is step by step, taking people with us as partners in the process to achieve our objectives.
Nowhere will that be better demonstrated than in our plans for locality commissioning. We intend the strategic planning of the health boards and the provider responsibilities of acute units to remain, but the decisions about what treatment to organise on behalf of patients should be drawn together in local GP commissioning groups. In the light of such changes, the role of health boards will be changed and they will be able to reassert their traditional strategic role.
I was very interested in what the hon. Member for East Londonderry said because he alluded to some of the key strategic issues concerning the changing nature of the delivery of health care and the need to take some fairly hard decisions. When I first served on the health authority just the other side of the River Thames—in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham—in 1976, we had 14 hospitals; today we have four. It has not been easy to achieve, but it has involved—more than anything—taking people with us rather than simply telling them what is good for them. To some extent, that element has been missing from the management of the health service in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the problems relating to the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals health and social

services trust, the Belfast City Hospital health and social services trust and other trusts. At present, formation of trusts throughout the health service is entirely spontaneous, and without strategy. At no time have services been considered, not institutions; what patients receive, not bricks and mortar. Even the recent merger of the Ulster Hospital trust and the North Down and Ards Community health and social services trust was driven solidly by the financial position of the Ulster hospital, not by any view about what care packages patients need.
This is the atomisation and break-up of the health service that the reforms have engendered: providers, commissioners, community care and acute services are considered almost as separate businesses. That must end, as must the evasion of hard decisions, which will have to be taken—in many cases, the sooner the better.
A Labour Government created the NHS and, if the British people give us the opportunity in a few weeks' time, it will fall to a Labour Government to rescue and renew it, by re-establishing our vision of a comprehensive health service, publicly funded and publicly operated, free at the point of use and universally available on the basis of clinical need alone. A Labour Government will make a substantial difference and change the disastrous course on which the NHS throughout the United Kingdom is set.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) on his success in getting this important subject debated today. He, like many other Northern Ireland Members, has long been involved in efforts to improve and maintain hospital services, especially in his constituency. I know of his tremendous efforts a few years ago to retain acute services at the Moyle hospital in Larne. Although his fight for retention of acute services was unsuccessful, the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and those associated with him, in Larne borough council and elsewhere, did much to convince the Northern health and social services board of the need to keep the Moyle open and retain a range of services there. 
Today's debate has given hon. Members from Northern Ireland an opportunity to raise issues concerning hospital services, albeit most of the hon. Members present are from one political party. They have raised some important issues and I have listened extremely carefully to their comments, which ranged widely. I shall try to respond to some of the more important comments now, but I suspect that, in view of the limited time that has been left to me, I shall be unable to cover all of them so, in the time-honoured tradition, I shall write to hon. Members about any substantive issues that remain outstanding.
During my two and a half years or so as the Northern Ireland Health Minister, I have come to realise that local communities and the Members of Parliament who represent them take great pride in their local hospitals and staunchly oppose anyone—certainly any Minister—who for any reason seeks to alter the status of a local hospital. Nevertheless, I believe that it is my duty, as the Minister with responsibility for health and social services, to consider the overall strategic picture and to assess the future of local hospitals in that context.
That issue has been raised by several hon. Members this morning. The question was asked, "Have we got regional strategy right?" At some stage, when we have


gone out to consultation on this, I shall want to hear what hon. Members regard as a more appropriate regional strategy for the future.
When I spoke in the debate on the Department's new regional strategy for the period 1997 to 2002 in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in March 1996, I emphasised the necessity for all of us involved in the governance of Northern Ireland to consider the wider picture and to address the matters holistically. Today, I re-emphasise that need. We must decide together how best to spend the limited money available for health and social care, so that we can attain the highest possible levels of care, levels equivalent to or better than—I prefer to consider the "better than"—those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The money and resources available for health care cannot match the ever increasing demand—a fact of life that we must all, like it or not, accept. It follows therefore that we must be ready to adapt and change health care provision, to ensure that the highest quality of care best suited to need is accessible to everyone.
This is where the balancing act comes in: between the pressures to concentrate resources and provision at a limited number of regional sites, and the needs of local communities, particularly in the more rural areas of Northern Ireland where people live some distance from the main regional centres. I do not claim for a moment that these decisions are easy to make.
All this means providing treatment in the most appropriate settings where the necessary skills and expertise are available. In terms of hospital care, many factors besides purely financial ones have been at work for some time now and are driving change in the way hospital services are provided. I want to mention a few of them this morning.
First, more patients than ever are being treated as out-patients or day patients. Secondly, day surgery—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—is growing at a tremendous rate. Thirdly, as a result of these and other factors, lengths of stay are generally declining. Fourthly, new treatments allow care that was once provided in hospitals to be provided in more local settings. Finally, the report known as Calman 1 has resulted in a move towards a consultant-provided service—as opposed to what used to be a consultant-led service.
One immediate outcome of changes of this kind is a reduced requirement for in-patient beds. Moreover, increasing specialisation by doctors leads to a concentration of work on fewer sites in order to provide the case loads necessary to retain and develop skills. There is evidence to suggest that that concentration leads to better outcomes for patients—for instance, in the treatment of some cancers. Changes in the hours of junior doctors, which we all welcome, mean that they now work in larger teams that require sufficient volumes of work to develop their skills.
It is clear to me, and I hope to all present today, that in these circumstances Northern Ireland cannot sustain its current pattern of 18 acute hospitals all providing in-patient acute care. That does not make clinical sense; nor does it make economic sense. The Department's regional strategy for 1997 to 2002 was published last year and envisaged specialised acute hospital services being

concentrated on far fewer sites, so that patients can receive their care from highly skilled specialists, and can benefit from the latest advances in medical technology.
Acute in-patient care will in future be built around the cornerstone of Northern Ireland's six major hospitals—the Royal Victoria hospital, the Belfast City hospital, Craigavon, Antrim, Altnagelvin and the Ulster. There will of course be other hospitals, as we said in the regional strategy document; but the misconception persists in Northern Ireland that we will be left with just six hospitals. That is not true.
As I have said, we want to provide care at the appropriate level and in the appropriate setting. That involves balancing the idea of providing the latest high-technology care in the bigger centres against the other services that must be provided near people locally. That will mean retaining other hospitals besides the six that I have listed, but they will not be doing the same things.
There is no doubt that the role of local hospitals will change. Some of them, along with the six, will continue to provide a range of acute services, although that may be a smaller range than at present. They will do that possibly by linking up with each other or with the larger hospitals to secure clinical expertise and maintain the quality of care.

Rev. Martin Smyth: With modern technology, is it not possible to tap into the expertise of world-class specialists, even in small local hospitals? That is why I referred earlier not so much to more people but to using technology better.

Mr. Moss: That is an extremely important point. The use of modern information technology will certainly enable more advice to be given and work to be done at smaller hospitals, since it will allow for more contact between consultants. Initially, however, consultants may offer more peripatetic services in a given area instead of just being based in one large hospital.
Other smaller local hospitals will evolve to deliver a range of complementary services such as out-patient clinics, specialist nursing services, convalescent and rehabilitation services, and diagnostic and therapeutic services. The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised some concerns about the Banbridge hospital. We are mindful of the possibility of some delays in relocating the services that will remain there. After all, the decision that I took was only to remove the in-patient services. We intend to retain out-patient and diagnostic services at the hospital site, and we intend to spend money on revamping the nursing block which is still on the site. Treasury rules demand that we look at private finance initiative solutions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am pressing for those rules to be waived in this instance so that we can get on with the necessary work on the building and move the services from the current site.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for stating that he is pressing to have Treasury rules removed—I trust that he will be successful—but I also noticed that he was talking only about continuing the existing out-patient services. Can he also give us some hope of the technological developments that he has just been describing being applied to the site?

Mr. Moss: We intend that there will be more than just out-patient services on the site. I mentioned diagnostic


and therapeutic services. We invited local GPs to discuss with us which services would best be provided in Banbridge rather than elsewhere. We fully intend to provide as many services as possible—as make sense—in Banbridge, to save the local population travelling some distance along those roads, with the associated problems of the ambulance service to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What role does the ambulance service have to play in this scheme of things? How many ambulance crews have been trained as paramedics; what encouragement are they given to train as paramedics?

Mr. Moss: That is an extremely important point. In view of what hon. Members have said about the ambulance service, I am slightly concerned about it and shall be examining it over the next few weeks. I shall then answer the points that they have made. We encourage paramedic training, but in future some emergency treatment will be offered in the primary care-led service, not the secondary care-led service. The ambulance service can still have an important role, but resuscitation after heart attacks might in future be done in the primary care service instead of in hospitals, in the first instance.
The pattern of hospital provision in Northern Ireland will be affected by the major strategic change which involves the health service moving from being secondary care led to being primary care led. Cardiac services at the Royal have been mentioned. It is certainly disappointing that the problems arose, but the understanding is that the Royal will treat 1,100 cardiac cases a year. They will come from boards and from fundholders. An additional 100 are allowed through the private system. If seven cardiac cases from the Republic of Ireland are treated, they are an extension of that private provision and are not displacing people from Northern Ireland who need cardiac surgery.
The Royal hospital took the view, back in the autumn, that it might not hit the target that it sought to achieve, but it decided just after Christmas that it would. Fundholders who turned up with money to purchase surgery were told that the complement had been filled—the hospital cannot do more than 1,200 cases. The target agreed at the start of the year has been met.
With reference to the acute hospitals reorganisation project—AHRP—and the McKenna report, I shall be making a decision on that in the near future. It is a difficult decision, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up, I am afraid.

Asylum Seekers

11 am

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I want to bring to the attention of the House the particular difficulties faced by the London boroughs because of the problems of asylum seekers.
There are, of course, asylum seekers and asylum seekers. I entirely support the policy of the Government to help genuine asylum seekers, but to discourage the growing number of people from abroad who come to Britain on holiday, as students or in some other capacity and, when the time comes for them to leave, declare themselves to be in need of asylum.
The matter was adequately dealt with by the Social Security Committee report on benefit for asylum seekers, which was an all-party document that pointed out that it was costing about £200 million a year for those people, many of whom could reasonably be called economic migrants and some of whom are just benefit seekers on holiday, to remain in Britain. It is wrong that ratepayers in the London area should bear an undue proportion of the burden of expenditure that those people are causing.
I understand that many people want to come to Britain to work, but there is a procedure whereby people can legitimately become part of our community. People who come as economic migrants are sidestepping that.
The Government, with cross-party backing, decided to do something about the matter. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 stated that people whose application to remain in Britain had been turned down could no longer receive the social security and housing benefit that they had previously enjoyed. That is estimated to have cut the number of bogus asylum seekers by about half.
It is a great worry to me and many others that the Opposition home affairs spokesman seems to want to scrap the legislation and return to the previous situation. I would consider that extremely irresponsible. It would open the floodgates again, and presumably the £200 million-a-year cost that was estimated when the legislation was introduced would again become part of the charge on the British taxpayer.
In order to try to subvert the legislation, a case was recently brought before our courts and to the High Court which sought to overturn the provisions that the Government intended. The Government are keen to help genuine asylum seekers, but do not want them to be sucked into the racket of evading our immigration laws.
The judges effectively, although not directly, overturned the decision that the Act produced and said that those who declare themselves destitute must be given assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948. The problem of supporting them has landed largely on the inner London boroughs, where most of those people migrate as there is more to do in central London. I am sure that many of them are working illegally, and of course work is readily available in big cities.
The London councils have a particular problem. They are now providing for 3,000 single males, many of whom are from east European countries recently liberated from oppressive regimes. They cannot by any means be said to be from countries where they would find themselves in grave political difficulties if they had stayed at home.

There are also about 2,000 families, with young children who must be supported. The cost of that to Westminster council is estimated to be £2 million a year, but over London as a whole, the cost is running at about £140 million a year, which is a great deal of money to be found from the council tax budget.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I would not want my hon. Friend to mislead the House. She should point out that the figure that she has just quoted represents the net expenditure which will fall on the city council. There is a great deal of further expenditure, which is paid for by grant.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend. He is a great authority on the matter, as he represents Westminster city council. I know that he has an important contribution to make.
Goodness knows how much it costs for the legal aid that those people invoke to keep challenging the decision that they are not bona fide asylum seekers.
The Daily Mail today reports the case of a woman from Russia who has managed to stay in Britain for five years. According to the magistrates court yesterday, she has cost the British taxpayer £40,000. She was arrested, of course, for stealing. I do not know how people who are not bona fide asylum seekers and whose applications have been rejected time and again manage to remain in this country for so long at the expense of the British public, but the system clearly needs tightening up.
A number of London boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth and Westminster—are to challenge the judges' decision, as it has placed an enormous financial burden on the taxpayers in central London. Before that decision, Westminster had five applications from asylum seekers for help, but since the judges' decision in October, the number has increased to 300. At present Westminster city council is accommodating 66 families with children and 338 single adults, half of whom come from eastern Europe and are able-bodied males.
Westminster is in a unique position because, being the centre of the capital city, it must also accommodate many other homeless people who find their way to London and take up temporary accommodation places. That means that the alleged asylum seekers whom the council is obliged to support often have to be put in expensive accommodation. There is a limit to the number of cheap bed-and-breakfast places in the centre of a city like London. Much of the accommodation is in hotels, which can charge a great deal more for a week's bed and breakfast than the sum that the council considers adequate, and certainly more than the sum that might be adequate in outer London boroughs or in other parts of the country. Therefore we have this unique situation, which Westminster has to deal with.
The Government have announced—this is most welcome—that they are to contribute £165 a week for each asylum seeker while their requests for asylum are being endlessly considered. Of course, in some parts of Britain, that may be adequate, but in Westminster it is not. It has done detailed homework and it can prove that, on average, the cost for the council is £215 a week for a single adult—and that is based on shared bed-and-breakfast accommodation, not on very expensive flats.
The National Assistance Act says that the assistance given to these people must be provided in kind, which means that Westminster city council has to use its meals


on wheels service to take food to them, wherever they are placed, whether in the centre of London or in outer boroughs. In addition to the breakfast that comes with the bed-and-breakfast accommodation, they have to be given a packed lunch, presumably in case they decide to go shopping in the middle of the day or to do a bit of work on the black economy—who knows? They also have to be provided with an evening meal and snacks to keep them through the day because the assumption is that they have no money—they have declared themselves destitute.
In addition, the council has to provide those people with a hygiene pack, which must include a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, a flannel and deodorants. For a family of half a dozen, six sets of those commodities must be provided. Presumably, if those people are here for long enough under such terms, they will have to be provided with clothing, shoe leather and who knows what else. All that cost falls on the British taxpayer and particularly on Westminster residents. The council estimates that, in addition to what the Government are proposing, about £35 a year will fall on each council tax payer in Westminster.
Again and again in the House, we hear the Opposition spokesman on housing, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), assert for the umpteenth time that all the residents in Westminster are terribly well off, so they can easily afford those extra charges. Nothing is further from the truth. Part of his act—because it is an act; he does it every time he gets the chance—is to cite people living in Mayfair and Belgravia, which we all know are two of the most expensive neighbourhoods in Britain.
The truth is that, out of 100,000 households in Westminster, only 1,500 are in Mayfair and only 3,000 are in Belgravia. Many of those people live in old-style housing association Peabody flats. They are on modest incomes. Many of them are elderly, managing on their state pension and perhaps also a little pension from their work. They pay their full rent and for all their own expenses. Now they are going to be asked to pay £35 to able-bodied males who have come over here on a prolonged holiday and now claim that the British taxpayer should support them.
In one case, a man from Romania, who came over here on a coach tour for a football match—if the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) would listen, she would hear practical examples—decided that he did not want to go back, declared himself an asylum seeker and is still here four years later. He has never done a stroke of work in his life. Why should someone who is elderly and who is scraping along on their basic income have to support people in those circumstances?

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend is exploiting a rich seam and she is doing so assiduously. Is she aware that there is widespread resentment? This morning, I was reading a letter from a constituent of mine, who has fallen into a Catch 22 situation between health and social service provision, about the assistance that is available to people who do not have the right to reside in Britain, yet are milking not only the taxpayers, but the caring services, on which so many others depend.

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In my constituency at the weekend, I had the case of a woman

who has managed to remain here for five years by playing the system. She has given birth to two children while she has been here and she is so addicted to the social services that, when she needs to go shopping in Basildon, she telephones her social service assistant worker and asks for a minicab to take her there because she cannot bring back her shopping. That is a fact, which I will and could demonstrate if I had to. Such things go on and they get up the noses of all constituents, including those of Opposition Members, who seem to think it is funny that elderly British people, who are managing to live on their modest incomes, should fork out for alleged asylum seekers, who are simply parasites.
As I have said, Westminster has a particular problem and particular expenses. My purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the House is to say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that Westminster's special circumstances should be given special treatment. Best of all, we acknowledge that, although this matter has to be dealt with, it is a national problem and should not be landed on the doorstep of a relatively small group of residents in the centre of London, who have many other problems associated with residence in London and who need to be given special care and help.
This matter needs to be aired because I am talking largely about Westminster. Of the 100,000 households in Westminster, more than half are on below-average incomes. Westminster has inherited many Greater London council estates such as Mozart and Lissom Green, which are given special estate assistance grants by the Government to help the low-income people living there, who have particular problems, but those people are all part and parcel of the community charge scheme. In addition, about 16,000 households live in either Guinness Trust or Peabody estates, which again cater specially for people on modest incomes. They provide good-quality homes, but, like everyone else, the people who live there pay their rates and 50 per cent. or perhaps more are elderly people on modest incomes.
As I was a member of Westminster city council, I have many friends among the residents in those places—people who used to be my constituents. It is true that, in many cases, they have made careful provision for themselves in their old age, have a small additional pension as well as their old-age pension and pay all their rent and their bills and ask for nothing from the state. They are proud and happy to do so. Such people should not be exploited by people who are exploiting the system.
In Britain, about 70,000 alleged asylum seekers are going through umpteen appeals against deportation. All of them can exploit the loophole provided by the National Assistance Act. It is an extremely important matter. I have outlined some of the costs in Westminster, but the people are distributed throughout Britain and other council areas will be grateful for the assistance that the Government have already announced. However, it ill behoves Opposition Members to laugh at this and to treat it as a joke. We know what they would do because we have heard it from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman: they would sweep away the measures that the Government have tried to introduce and reinstate the previous position.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me because I want to sit down soon and let others into the debate?
The cost will again be landed on the doorsteps of British taxpayers, and particularly on the doorsteps of Westminster city ratepayers. They do not deserve to have to pay those costs out of their own pockets.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is welcome in the sense that it provides an opportunity to talk about the problem of asylum seekers and the situation facing local authorities. However, I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who, today, appears to be batting for Westminster council—should pause for a moment to think about why people seek asylum. Britain is a signatory of the 1951 Geneva convention, which requires that if someone is genuinely and legitimately in fear of persecution for political, religious or social reasons, they should be guaranteed a place of safety in the country to which they flee. That principle should be adhered to.
Britain has among the smallest numbers of asylum seekers of any European country. Compared to most other continents, Europe has one of the smallest numbers of asylum seekers. The real burden of the world's refugee crisis falls not on western Europe but on Mexico, Jordan, India and on other countries that are near to places where there has been great civil strife or which have Governments who are deeply oppressive towards their own people. So the idea that there is a huge flood of people trying to get into western Europe and into Britain, and particularly into Westminster city council accommodation, is slightly over-egging the pudding. It is also missing the point.
It is a major step for someone with a legitimate fear to seek refuge in exile. So far as I am aware, no hon. Member has been woken up by the police at 4 am, taken into custody with no rights of access to a judicial system, and, with his or her family, forced to flee into exile for their own safety. It is not an experience that most British people have had, and we should think very carefully about what a major step it would be to undertake such a journey.
When asylum seekers arrive in the United Kingdom, they must apply for asylum. Under the new legislation, if they do not apply immediately at the port of entry, their chances of being granted asylum are severely diminished. If one has grown up in Iraq and has always been completely terrified of anyone wearing any type of uniform, it is fairly unlikely that—after managing to steal oneself out of Iraq, possibly using false documentation, aliases, guides and other measures—one will trust a person wearing a uniform whom one encounters when first arriving at the airport. It is more likely that one would first get out of the airport and then think about the next step.
In the United Kingdom there has been a systematic erosion of people's ability to seek asylum and to have their cases properly determined. There has also been a vindictiveness against asylum seekers—it has been parroted in this debate by some Conservative Members—which has been promoted by some newspapers,

particularly the Daily Mail. For very many years, that newspaper has had a long and dishonourable record on this issue.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell the House what mandate he has from the British people to share their citizenship with foreigners.

Mr. Corbyn: I am unsure how one answers such a totally ludicrous question. If someone has a legitimate fear of persecution, they flee abroad and try to seek asylum. Many people sought asylum from Nazi Germany. Presumably the hon. Gentleman, on the basis of his comment, believes that they should not have been admitted to the UK, and that people fleeing from oppression in any regime should not be admitted. He talks utter nonsense. I suggest that he start to think more seriously about human rights issues. Suppose he had to flee this country because an oppressive regime had taken over. Where would he go? Presumably he would not want help from anyone else, because he does not believe that help should be given to anyone else.
Let us return to the issues facing people fleeing areas of oppression. Currently if they arrive here, seek asylum and are refused, they have lost all access to benefits. They then have to undergo an appeal process, which can take a very long time. During the appeal process, what on earth are they supposed to do unless they are declared destitute and consequently supported by a local authority? We need to restore benefit rights for all people pending the outcome of their appeal. Not to do so is a gross abuse of individual human rights. Moreover, removing benefit is not saving any money because, in many cases, it costs far more to look after the children involved by placing them in foster care than by allowing their families to look after them in the normal and proper way.
We should consider the experiences of people who have fled countries. A couple of weeks ago, I spent several hours talking to a group of asylum seekers from Iran. That regime—despite the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and numerous other human rights abuses—is beginning to be cosied up to by the British Government and by the rest of western Europe, because they now prefer to support Iran rather than Iraq. The people whom I met told me, chapter and verse, of how they had been treated by the regime in Iran—of how they had been summarily imprisoned, with no access to the courts; of how their families had been beaten up and abused while they were in prison; and of how the regime murdered one man's fiancée in front of him because he would not talk about the secret activities that he was supposed to be involved in. I heard about many other similar cases.
Those people came to this country and applied for asylum. Their applications were refused, and they appealed. They are now living a life of virtual destitution, while the Home Office ponders what to do for them. Those people stood up for their communities against an oppressive regime. I remind the House that merely because a regime calls itself democratic does not mean that human rights are guaranteed. Around the world, many regimes call themselves democratic and have a multi-party democracy, but that does not mean that human rights are universally respected or that people are safe.
The hon. Member for Billericay said that no one in eastern Europe has any justification for seeking asylum. That is a sweeping statement. I presume that she has not


had an opportunity to read the papers from Amnesty International or from Helsinki Watch on what is happening in Albania.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn: I will in a moment.
Perhaps the hon. Lady has not had a chance to consider what is happening in Romania, where homosexuality is a criminal act, or in Bulgaria and other places. All is not well merely because there is multi-party democracy and a market economy. Perhaps events in Albania are not a credit to the market economy system.

Mrs. Gorman: I did not say that every eastern European's application for asylum in this country was bogus. However, many countries that were in the former Soviet sphere of influence have now established democracies, and some people from those countries come here to claim asylum. Of those claiming benefit from Westminster city council, about 50 come from countries in which there is no longer oppression.
Is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) aware that—in a report signed by Labour Members—the all-party Social Security Select Committee, which considered the matter, stated:
Any responsible Government would want to examine ways of controlling expenditure of £200 million a year, when it is known that well over 90 per cent. of people
who claim asylum turn out not to be genuine? Genuine applicants, such as those described by the hon. Gentleman, are frustrated and suffer delayed applications because of those who are not genuine.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Lady seems to have moved on a bit from the cant and prejudice that she produced in her earlier speech. However, she does not deal with the point. I am a member of the Social Security Select Committee and took part in that inquiry. I did not sign that section of the report, although I produced a minority opinion, which I am sure that she would disagree with profoundly. However, that is up to her.
I merely want the hon. Lady and the House to understand that democracy does not always follow multi-party elections. The UK, for example, prides itself on its close relationship with Turkey, yet many Kurdish people have fled Turkey and appealed for a place of safety here. Many of them have died trying to get out of Turkey because they have a point of view that is different from that of the Turkish Government. I think that there is a foreign policy implication and potential initiative in that situation.
Since last year, people from the Ivory Coast have sought asylum in the UK. I recall a discussion with the Home Office about the safety of people from the Ivory Coast. The Minister told me that he was assured that everything was okay in the Ivory Coast. The students whom I met who had sought asylum in this country from the Ivory Coast told me that their Government were so keen on carrying out the economic wishes of the International Monetary Fund and others that they were crushing anyone who opposed them—they crushed trade unions and they crushed student opposition, sending

troops into various universities and closing them down. Is that how a democratic Government should behave? No. We must recognise that those people from the Ivory Coast are justifiably seeking asylum.

Dr. Godman: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, because I come across few asylum seekers—an experience that I suspect that I share with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). I have come across a few at Greenock prison. One concession was offered a few months ago by the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—a promise that those women seeking to avoid the infliction of genital mutilation would be given sympathetic consideration when seeking asylum. That is at least one concession in this picture of unrelieved gloom.

Mr. Corbyn: At least the Minister was forced into that concession during a debate in this Chamber. I wonder whether those who make decisions on refusing people asylum, refusing them benefits and forcing them into destitution have ever taken the trouble to sit down and listen to the stories of people who have been tortured and abused.
The process depends on refugees applying at the point of entry. That is often difficult to do, for reasons that I have already outlined. It is also often difficult for people to talk about the torture experiences that they have been through. Many soldiers who were tortured during the second world war found it difficult to talk about their experiences for years. That is no different from the position of people who have been tortured in Iran, Iraq, west Africa or anywhere else. The issue is not simple. They feel a sense of failure, a sense of humiliation and a sense of defeat. We should have a different attitude towards asylum seekers.
Almost uniquely among European countries, this country routinely puts in prison people who seek asylum. There are nearly 900 people in British prisons who have sought asylum. It costs £20 million a year to keep them in prison. I have been given a letter from several people who are being held in the Home Office holding centre at Haslar. They complain about their treatment and the way in which the immigration service carries out its duties. They say:
Another problem, literally fatal for certain detainees, is deportation without prior notice of the date being given. Those under notice for many months are often collected from Haslar for deportation at a week-end when it is quite impossible to have recourse to their solicitors or other help.
We should think a bit more seriously about how we treat those people.
For the past few weeks, there has been a hunger strike at Her Majesty's prison in Rochester. I understand that that hunger strike is not continuing at the moment. When I raised the issue on a private notice question, the Home Office Minister was dismissive. She appeared to have no understanding of the moral force of people undertaking a hunger strike to draw attention to their problems. Hon. Members should stop and think for a moment about the circumstances of those who come to this country seeking asylum, go to prison with no direct access to the courts and then, thinking that they have been badly treated and fearful of what will happen, undertake a hunger strike and, in some cases, a refusal to take fluids. If that happened in


another country under a regime of which we disapproved, the British Government would say that it was a terrible indictment on the human rights record of that regime that prisoners were forced to undertake a hunger strike to draw attention to their situation. In this country, people who say that get routine abuse from Home Office Ministers and Conservative Members. Stop and think for a moment about the moral courage of those who have undertaken a hunger strike to ensure that their case is at least looked at.
Attitudes towards asylum seekers need to be changed. Routine imprisonment should end. Access to benefits should be restored for those applying for asylum. If they are refused asylum but are undertaking their legitimate right of appeal, they should continue receiving benefits until the appeal has been determined. It is wrong to force them into destitution or to throw them out of the country, often with no access to lawyers or anyone else.
The Government's regime on asylum seekers is creating a serious situation, with a class of destitute people that is paralleled across Europe. Those who have applied for asylum, have been refused and are fearful of deportation end up going into hiding in the poorest areas of Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Berlin, London or Amsterdam. They are subject to the worst kind of exploitation by rogue employers, drugs and prostitution. They cannot reveal their identity because they would be deported. Only the Churches around Europe have drawn attention to the issue and tried to do something about it. I hope that we shall recognise that we should have a slightly more humane approach towards asylum seekers in this country.
Last year, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice held a conference called, "Why Detention?" A report of the conference has been published. There was universal condemnation of the principle of imprisoning asylum seekers and a plea for a more understanding approach. Europe must stop its xenophobic attitude towards those who seek a place of safety here and adopt a more humane approach.
There is also a foreign policy agenda. Where is the outright condemnation from the Government of the denial of human rights in Iran, Iraq, the Ivory Coast and many other countries? I find it very muted on many occasions. They seem more interested in trade and selling arms to those regimes than in defending human rights. History shows that unless we stand up for human rights wherever they are abused around the world, eventually it will come back and our human rights will be abused. A lot of brave people in this country have stood up for the rights and needs of asylum seekers. Local authorities are being told that they should pay a large share of the bill. I do not want them to have to do that. Central Government should give more support to local authorities to ensure that asylum seekers do not live in destitution. Above all, I want a change in attitude and a more humane approach to this serious problem of the victims of injustice from around the world.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be briefer than my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the hon. Member for Islington. North (Mr. Corbyn), because this is a short debate and I want others to get in. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.
The problem that we are discussing arises from the autumn of 1995, when various announcements were made at the Conservative party conference about the Government's intentions. There was evidence through the autumn of that year of a lack of interaction between Government Departments. Brussels often praises Whitehall for having better co-ordination between Departments than any other Government in the European Union, but that co-ordination was not in evidence in this case. The Social Security Advisory Committee wrote a hostile report on the Government's intentions. I suspect that once the Home Office had legislative cover and clearance for its Bill, it washed its hands of the consequences, which would fall on other Departments.
On Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, in December 1995, I alluded to some of the problems that I could foresee. I mentioned in particular the problems of unaccompanied children coming to Westminster and other central London boroughs. Perhaps as a consequence of that debate, there was a delay in bringing forward the amendments to the benefit regulations, quaintly named the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. The Opposition were satisfied with a 90-minute debate. Some Conservative Members felt that that was inadequate time to discuss the regulations. I was the last to speak before the replies to the debate and was allowed three minutes. I said that the drama that I foresaw would be played out on the streets of my constituency rather than those of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who were introducing the measures.
A legal case went against the Government in the summer, as a result of which they had to amend the Bill in the House of Lords with primary rather than secondary legislation. As has been said, on 8 October the decision was taken that obliged local authorities to provide assistance to single adult asylum seekers. That decision was challenged in the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was defeated. That series of legal defeats reflects rather badly on the degree of co-ordination involved in the preparation of the legislation before its introduction. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, I am briefed primarily by Westminster city council, but I shall allude to other areas of central London later. At the heart of the problem is the fact that it is being dealt with on a piecemeal, rather than a co-ordinated, basis.
My hon. Friend referred to the £165 per week grant provided by central Government. That is an average figure drawn from estimates that the Government received, which ranged from £95 for cold weather shelter provision to £290. That scatter of figures derives from outer and inner London areas. As the Bishop of London reminded us during the centenary service for the King's Fund only yesterday, costs outside central London are quite different from those in inner London. For two reasons, the £95 for cold weather shelter is an unrealistic figure for provision in central London. First, the rough sleepers initiative has absorbed so much of the accommodation that might be used for that purpose that the central London boroughs no longer have access to it. Secondly, asylum seekers are specifically excluded from cold weather shelters.
Westminster pays £175 for accommodation alone, before the addition of extra sums that it must provide. The rough sleepers initiative, conducted by central Government in conjunction with the voluntary sector, has been a great success. The number of those sleeping rough in central London has fallen from more than 1,000 to


below 400 in the past six or seven years. This is a prime case where central Government would render major assistance if they took over the co-ordination in conjunction with the voluntary sector, upon which a great deal of the burden of the problem falls. That would instantly reduce the average unit cost. The piecemeal approach adopted at present increases the likelihood of fraud.
It is recognised widely that the burden of the problem falls on local authorities in London, and primarily on those in inner London. I freely acknowledge that Westminster is not the only authority involved: the borough of Islington is affected in the same way. I alluded to the problem of unaccompanied children during the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill in December 1995. This year, Westminster will spend £1.2 million on unaccompanied children. There is no logical reason why Westminster and one or two other boroughs should uniquely absorb that problem. Unaccompanied children—who come to this country extremely well prepared—simply go to a handful of authorities in central London about which they have heard or to which they have been directed, and the council tax payers in those areas must foot the bill.
There is a hazard to community and race relations in central London if such costs continue to fall heavily on council tax. The burden constitutes a risk to the quality of community and race relations in those areas and, in that respect, I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. At the margin, community care budgets are being diverted to this problem and away from council tax payers.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister—for whom I have some sympathy—first, that all unavoidable costs resulting from the programme should be reimbursed to local authorities that are acting on behalf of the nation as a whole. Secondly, it would be immensely desirable if the Government would announce their grant levels for 1997–98. It is now 5 March and the fiscal year ends within a month. However, local authorities do not yet know what level of grant the Government will provide.
I hope that the Home Office—in this respect I make common cause with the hon. Member for Islington, North—can improve the speed with which it processes these cases. Between December 1995 and May 1996, applicants under the legislation prior to 1993 waited an average of 43 months for initial decisions. Between October and December 1996, the waiting time increased to more than 48 months. The comparable statistics for those who were treated under the legislation that was introduced in 1993 are 10.7 months in the earlier period and 12.2 months in the second period. The time taken by the immigration appellate authority to determine appeals lengthened from eight to 10 months in the same period. Outstanding appeals increased from 14,000 in February 1996 to nearly 22,000 at the end of last year. So the burden on local authorities is being extended because the process of handling applications is slowing down rather than accelerating.
I said that I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who will come to the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Department of Health as much of the expenditure flows through that Department. However, I am not sure that the Department of Health should necessarily take the lead in co-ordinating this process. It originates in

the Home Office, and I believe that it would be desirable if that Department took the lead—not least because a lack of co-ordination at the end of 1995 led to this situation. I promised that I would be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I now sit down within 10 minutes.
Several hon. Members rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Five hon. Members hope to catch my eye in the 25 minutes before the winding-up speeches begin. With the co-operation of the House, I hope that they will all be successful.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall try to be brief. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has discussed this subject on several occasions and raised the issue of responsibility. His speech contrasted considerably with that of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) at the beginning of the debate. I must admit that I was one of those who laughed at some of the things that she said, not because I do not take the subject seriously, but because it was obvious that she does not have the slightest clue about who asylum seekers are, the circumstances in which they find themselves, and what happens to them.
I agree that London boroughs should not carry the responsibility for asylum seekers, but what are the alternatives? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government should shift the responsibility somewhere else. The hon. Member for Billericay seemed to endorse the Government's option of appealing the court decisions and returning to their favoured position of removing benefits completely and leaving asylum seekers with absolutely nothing. I remind the House that the measure applies to asylum seekers who apply in country, and not to those who apply at the port of entry. That is despite the fact that the success rate for asylum applications of people who apply in country is at least as great as—and sometimes greater than—that of people who apply at the port of entry.
In the first four months of last year, 775 people were awarded refugee status, 610 of whom were in-country applicants—precisely the people who have been denied benefits. The Government were warned about the repercussions from the beginning. The Social Security Advisory Committee warned the Government not to change the social security regulations in 1995, and pointed to the likely consequences of that action.
The Government's reasoning was the same then as it is now: they still talk about economic migrants and benefit scroungers. Anyone who deals with asylum seekers knows the reality. It is rubbish to say that people come to this country because the benefits here are more than the average wages in the countries from which they have come. They may be, but we should consider what that means in real terms, and what standard of living people have had in their own countries.
An Algerian asylum seeker told me that he had been a general practitioner in Algeria and that his wife had been a vet, but people were telling him that he had come here to live on benefits. I have known an 18-year-old Somali girl for a couple of years. She is struggling to look after six children younger than herself. They all live in a bed-sit, and she showed me photographs of her house in


Somalia, which has a mosque in the back garden that her father built. Yet we tell those people that they have come here to live on a few pounds a week in benefits.
The people who manage to get to this country are usually not the poorest or most downtrodden. The poorest people are in refugee camps in neighbouring countries: that is where the majority of refugees end up. How many of the 20 million refugees worldwide are trying to get to Europe, never mind the United Kingdom?
The Government lost the court case on the benefit regulations. At the last minute, they included these provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Time and again, those of us who served on the Committee considering that Bill and who participated in the debates asked what would happen and who would have ultimate responsibility. We said that local authorities would be stuck with the problem of having to deal with children under the Children Act 1989 and with homeless people on the streets. We did not know then that the courts would decide that the National Assistance Act 1948 could be used. We pointed out the problems and said that council tax payers would have to pick up the bill.
Even if we accepted the Government's view—which I do not—that only a tiny proportion of people who claim asylum are genuine refugees, we cannot defend a policy that leaves genuine refugees destitute. The hon. Member for Billericay defended the Government's position. Even if only a small number of cases are genuine, how can anyone defend such callousness? Genuine asylum seekers will be left without a penny to live on. Only one other country in Europe has such a policy, and that is Italy. On the outskirts of large towns such as Naples one sees shanty towns full of asylum seekers. That is the logical consequence of the Government's policy.
It is a disgrace to any civilised society even to consider leaving genuine asylum seekers without a penny to live on. That is what we should be debating, not the financial position of a few local authorities that have been dropped into this mess by the Government, who want to leave them in that mess. Hon. Members should read the Refugee Council's report, which shows the impact that having to live on nothing has on the lives of asylum seekers. People have to walk miles to soup kitchens to get a meal.
As the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said, delays should be eliminated. Why are people having to wait four or five years for a decision on their case? Why are the queues getting longer? In 1993, we were told that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 would make things better, and we were told last year that the 1996 Act would makes them better, but waiting times are getting longer. If we want to encourage people to make bogus applications, the way to do so is to let the queues get longer, but that penalises the genuine asylum seeker. I believe that the majority of applicants are genuine: I do not believe the 90 per cent. figure.
Long queues encourage the bogus applicant, so the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department should do something about it. Why has the number of cases awaiting appeal gone from 13,000 to 21,000? Many of those people will have to await their appeal—which they may well win—without a penny, because their benefits have been cut off. Do not tell me that that is what happens to people who are refused benefits through the social security system. Few people who are refused social

security benefits are left destitute without a penny. The people who are refused benefit tend to be those claiming a particular benefit to which they are not entitled.
We should not treat in such a way people who come here to escape from appalling conditions. They may have been in gaol and may have been tortured. To put them on the streets without a penny is a disgrace to any society that calls itself civilised.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. The topic of asylum seekers is fundamentally important for two obvious reasons. First, it matters crucially that this country honours, as it always has, its obligations under the Geneva convention. It is equally important that abuse of the asylum rules by the large number of people who make asylum applications knowing that their position as illegal immigrants has no bearing on the Geneva convention should be debated openly, so that it is fully understood and tackled.
Bearing in mind the fact that year in, year out the number of people found to be genuine Geneva convention cases ranges from 1,000 to 3,000, it stands to reason that the other tens of thousands of applicants include people who knowingly abuse the system. Those people do a disservice to genuine refugees, who are held up in the queue, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) alluded, and do not receive the treatment and care that should come their way.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wardle: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed this matter, but I am aware of the time, and I would like to make progress.
Britain has always honoured the Geneva convention, and has given sanctuary to people with a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they are fleeing and whose first safe country landing is in the United Kingdom. The only occasion that I know of when our proud record under successive Governments of honouring the convention was sullied was the recent al-Masari case. Reference to the primacy of British business interests in Saudi Arabia brought the integrity of our asylum criteria into question, and, when the Government lost the appeal, a thoroughly undesirable person was allowed to remain in this country and continue his political activity.
I want to make three points on detention, the asylum queue and the wider issue of asylum, the European Union and broader immigration policy. Much of what is said about detention is confused or misleading. Protesters may genuinely be concerned about refugees in detention, but the fact is that only a tiny proportion of applicants are detained. In virtually every case—not in 100 per cent. of cases, but in almost all of them—a detainee is someone whose appeal has been refused, who is waiting to be removed from the country and is only temporarily in detention, or whose application has been refused and is awaiting appeal but is considered likely to abscond. However, it is a tiny proportion of the number of people concerned.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wardle: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must make some progress.
My next point concerns the asylum queue. As I have already said and as is widely known, there are people in the queue who have arrived in this country and been welcomed as visitors but who have then overstayed that welcome, found work and assimilated themselves into the local population, quite unlawfully. When apprehended and questioned, they are frequently advised by immigration lawyers or advisers to apply for asylum because, once they are in the queue, they can stay here and qualify for social security. As my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said, it may take four years to resolve the case.
Recently, Ministers have pointed to the fall in the number of asylum applications and to the success of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. It is a welcome development if some bogus applicants are no longer applying, but it does not deal with the underlying problem of the queue. In December 1995, on Second Reading of the 1996 Act, I explained what I felt was the only way to tackle the problem, which was not simply to pass more legislation—Bills do not resolve what is fundamentally an administrative problem—but to process the queue swiftly.
On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that some 75,000 people were in the asylum queue at the end of 1995. He estimated the cost to be about £200 million a year. I said that I had every reason to believe that he was grossly underestimating the costs and that when the figures for social security, housing, school places, the health service and so on were added to that figure, the cost was likely to be closer to £500 million or even £750 million a year. I recommended that he should think again about his promise to spend £37 million on the appeals section of the asylum division and on the Lord Chancellor's Department and that he should spend about £150 million a year for two years to process the queue. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, once the queue is gone, the attraction of making a bogus claim disappears. At the same time, it would help the genuine applicants because they could be dealt with promptly.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said that everyone is concerned about people going into detention and many people do not go into detention. The Home Office is unable to give me an answer to my question, but perhaps my hon. Friend will have some idea. Does he know how many people who do not go into detention but who are bogus asylum seekers disappear and do not turn up ever again?

Mr. Wardle: I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact answer. Undoubtedly many people who are not detained but are in the queue and see their appeal coming closer to resolution, disappear into the undergrowth. That is unlawful and wrong and should not happen. It is all very well to talk about new legislation and new measures, but while the queue exists, the temptation to join it as a bogus applicant is there. That is fundamentally wrong. We must process the queue and ensure that those who do not qualify for leave to remain in this country are removed from here, including those who have absconded. That is being missed in all the headline chasing about new Bills every other year. That is not what is needed. We need competent administrative action.
I should like to raise the link between asylum and the European Union and the wider but directly related issue of immigration and border controls. Under the third pillar of co-operation in the EU, there has for several years been harmonisation of asylum policies—the Dublin convention is one example of that. The European Commission wants to go much further—it is perfectly open about its ambitions. It wants to take the third pillar into treaty competence and that includes asylum policy. The Government have said that they will resist that and I am sure that they are right to do so. The cornerstone of that resistance is not to allow Britain's border controls to be dismantled, as is required by the existing European treaty. The moment those border controls are gone, the ability to determine where a person has landed as the first safe country becomes confused.
There was recently a welcome announcement by the Dutch Government that they now recognise—the operative word is "now"—that no future British Government will willingly relinquish border controls. I should like to believe that it is significant that, until I made a fuss about this two years ago, there were no Government speeches or great policy statements on the subject of our border controls. There was only the occasional furtive and uneasy answer to parliamentary questions. Undoubtedly, Ministers in other EU member states and their officials all assumed that, sooner or later, Britain would cede its border controls when required to do so by the European Court. That position has changed, but the battle is not yet over.
The best thing that the Government can do is to be open and frank about the legal threat to our position as it now stands. There has been some progress with the recognition by the Dutch, but the problem is still there. By rehearsing the nature of the problem openly rather than glossing over it, the full force of British public opinion, including people of all ethnic origins, would be brought to bear to persuade the Commission that this country will not wish to change its stance.
Unfortunately, time and again Ministers have given Parliament the strong impression that the Government consider that they have a sound defence against the requirement in article 7A to dismantle border controls. The Government, effectively, seem to face both ways because they have said that they will never give away the border controls, but then say that we have an adequate defence.
It might be as well for Ministers to remind themselves of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" which states:
Ministers have a duty to give Parliament and the public as full account as possible about the policies, decisions and actions of the Government and not to mislead Parliament and the public.
They should also remember the Scott report, which said:
If the account given by a Minister to Parliament withholds information on the matter under review, it is not a full account.
Time and again we have not been given a full account on this subject in Parliament. While the Government gloss over our vulnerability but assert, at the same time, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has done, that the Government will not break European law, we are not getting to the bottom of the problem. The only way to do that is to be open with Parliament and the British public and to ensure that, with the force of British public opinion behind the Government, these matters can be dealt with to British satisfaction at the forthcoming


intergovernmental conference. To do that would put our asylum and immigration policies into the proper framework. This is a subject to which I fully intend to return in the next Parliament.

Mr. David Shaw: I speak as the Member of Parliament for Dover, which is a port of entry, and which has many immigration officers who have to carry out difficult work. They enforce our border controls with great difficulty, because there are many attempts at illegal immigration using asylum techniques, fraudulent documents or other methods. They face a difficult battle. There are police officers and special branch people at the port, as well as five social security benefit fraud investigators to deal with many of those who try to get into this country to take advantage of our system, either to claim benefits or to gain residency here.
Although many of us may support the Geneva convention and want to see people with a legitimate fear of persecution being able to come to this country for protection, we do not want people to take advantage of our compassion, and many of them who come here are doing that. When the recent hunger strike at Rochester was investigated, it was found that nearly all, if not all, the people involved were not genuine asylum seekers but illegal immigrants who were being detained with a view to being deported. Many people want to take advantage of this country.
The world is full of economic migrants, who can travel more easily than ever before. I accept that there are trouble spots, but there are not as many as asylum seekers would have us believe. We must also face the fact that, even in the case of brutal dictatorships such as Iraq, we cannot take in all those who suffer. I would like to help all those people who suffer from Saddam Hussein's actions, but we cannot do so. Almost the whole population of Iraq is persecuted and oppressed, and we could not take them all in.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has cited the example of Iraq. If people are desperate to get out of Iraq, why do they not go to Jordan or somewhere else in the middle east? Why do such people come all the way here? Is it because they are seeking the economic benefits of this country? Why do people have to traverse a continent to get away, instead of going to the country next door?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend raises the question of how so many migrants, who seek asylum or become illegal immigrants, reach this country.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot give way again, because of the shortage of time. Too many asylum seekers enter the country initially as family visitors, tourists, students and business people, and then suddenly discover that they want to remain as asylum seekers. That is why the Social Security Select Committee produced a report on the Government's proposals. I accept that the report was not unanimous, but we had no difficulty in saying that the Government's actions were right.
The problem is that far too many people have jumped on the asylum bandwagon. There is an industry supporting people who try to remain in this country when they cannot

justify their presence. I have recently come across the Migrant Training Company. Labour councillors in Camden have apparently been involved in a £1 million fraud with taxpayers' money, and European grants have gone astray. I understand that a Labour parliamentary candidate has also been involved. There is a serious possibility that Labour councillors in Camden will have to be surcharged as a result of that fraud.
We have to face the fact that real problems are caused by asylum policies and immigration. We cannot go on meeting the bill, which at one stage was £200 million a year, for attempts by 40,000 people to seek asylum. Many of those people are not genuine. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) mentioned a lady from Russia, who is an arts graduate and claims that she had problems at her university. That is not a good enough reason to cost the British taxpayer £40,000. The situation cannot continue.
I have much sympathy for Westminster council, which has had to bear considerable costs. Outrageous accusations have been made that the resources that Westminster receives from the Government are unfair, but it bears many costs that should properly be borne by the whole country. It is the central authority in London. I also have sympathy for Kent, which also bears some of the cost of asylum seekers. Dover district council has also had to bear the costs of some cases. It is unfair for local authorities to have to bear the costs, when the Geneva convention is a national policy.
It is also unfair that Camden council, and other Labour councils involved in the Migrant Training Company, are abusing the system and engaging in fraud. The Government have a serious problem, because they cannot tell councils that they will take over 100 per cent. of the bill, but allow Labour councils to take advantage by setting up fraudulent companies, such as the Migrant Training Company, for the benefit of Labour councillors and a Labour parliamentary candidate.

Mr. Corbyn: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Shaw: The evidence is sitting in the Department for Education and Employment, which has a European Court of Auditors report showing that the company has been involved in serious fraud. That is a disgrace, and the Labour councillors and members involved should be exposed. The Government have the right approach, but I have much sympathy for the councils that incur unreasonable expense.

Ms Ann Coffey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on obtaining her Adjournment debate. The issues she has raised concern a number of London boroughs, but I am not sure that some of her general comments were helpful. I remind her that it is easy to raise and exploit fears about immigration, but the challenge in a multiracial society is the maintenance of good race relations.
The Government's defence is that the current shambles over payments under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 is not their fault, but the fault of the judges. The Government claim that the judges have put local authorities in an invidious position, and that they have rushed to the rescue with a special grant to help out the local authorities.
I am not sure that that is a correct assessment of the judgment. The judges in the Court of Appeal said that, because asylum seekers were disqualified from assistance under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, they automatically qualified under the National Assistance Act 1948 for assistance from local authorities. As the 1948 Act had not been repealed by Parliament, the judges interpreted the general will of Parliament as a desire to continue to provide for those in need. That is the principle that has been behind the poor law for 350 years.
The present situation of local authorities is not the fault of the judges, in the stark way that the Government claim, but arises from the confusion caused by two conflicting Acts of Parliament. Clearly, the legal advice received by Ministers was not entirely sound. The local authorities had to appeal, because the Government refused to reimburse them for payments they made under section 21 of the 1948 Act. It was clear that the local authorities would not be reimbursed without a legal ruling that would enable Ministers to blame the judges for the Government having to pay for an alternative benefits system for asylum seekers, administered at a high cost by the local authorities.
I might add that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 did not remove asylum seekers' entitlement to national health service treatment. Asylum seekers would be admitted to hospital if they became physically ill through lack of funds, suffered hypothermia from sleeping on the streets or contracted a disease. If asylum seekers become mentally ill as a result of stress and depression, they would be entitled to treatment under the mental health Acts. It would be interesting to see the after-care programme for such cases.
Yesterday, when we discussed the special grant of £165 for each asylum seeker that the Government are giving local authorities, I asked about cash payments. The Department of Social Security has ruled that such payments are not lawful under the National Assistance Act 1948, and would not be eligible to be reimbursed, although the expenditure is lawful under general local government powers.
I understand that there is conflicting legal advice, but the present situation is absurd. Social workers' time is being used to deliver groceries and take people shopping. One silly example is that people cannot be given money for toothbrushes, because they have to be bought for them. The hon. Member for Billericay gave the example of the use of the meals on wheels service to provide food, when the service is already under much pressure. Local authorities could meet their responsibilities in a more cost-effective way if they could make direct cash payments. That idea should be pursued.
The recent Refugee Council report, "Just Existence", tracked 15 asylum seekers who had lost entitlement to benefit and were being offered various kinds of help by local authorities. No one reading that report could fail to be struck by the desperation of those people's lives and circumstances. Whatever the eventual judgment on their status, each personally saw overwhelming reasons for not being able to return to their country of origin, and would endure any conditions in this country rather than face that alternative. That is the reality that must be taken into account.
The importance to those people of resolving their status as quickly as possible is also clear. Several hon. Members have already talked about the delays, and I have a constituent who, after nearly five years in this country, has not yet had his appeal against refusal of refugee status heard. That is totally unacceptable.
The delays in the legal process need tackling. If the fundamental problem is not addressed, local authorities face the prospect of having to administer an alternative benefit system for asylum seekers, and to support them in hotels, bed-and-breakfast accommodation, hostels, flats and shelters. The administration will be costly, and will undermine local authorities' ability to perform their other statutory functions.
I know that the Government propose changes, as yet unannounced, in social services departments, but I would not have thought that the role of poor law administration was something that even the present Government had in mind for them. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps Ministers foresee the prospect, if a Conservative Government are re-elected, of an extended role for social services departments in dealing with destitution.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Coffey: I cannot, because of the shortage of time.
As a civilised society, we should offer refuge to genuine asylum seekers; we must also be aware of our humanitarian responsibilities. Our objection to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is that it used the withdrawal of benefits to establish who was and who was not a genuine asylum seeker. That was always bound to cause undue hardship.
I understand that a further appeal will be made to the House of Lords, and clearly, if the Lords uphold the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the practice will cease to be an option, even for the present Government. We must therefore consider the best way of giving assistance and benefits to people entitled to them, whatever legislation that process falls under. The assistance must be fair and consistent, and must not carry high administrative costs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on initiating this important debate. I assure the House that I have listened extremely carefully to the variety of points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members.
Clearly there will not be time for me to deal with all the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) raised several issues concerning the Home Office in connection with immigration and asylum policy, and I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to the appropriate Ministers' attention, so that he can be given answers. I shall also write to other hon. Members to deal with any other points that I am unable to raise during the short time available.
I must first make it plain that this Government and this country have a justifiable reputation for welcoming to our shores genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution and torture. But the escalating number of economic and bogus


asylum seekers who have come here, not because of persecution but because of the economic situation in this country and the benefits it affords them, has caused great concern.
There has been an abuse of the asylum system, as several of my hon. Friends have said. In 1988 there were 4,000 asylum applications; in 1995, the number had risen to a staggering 44,000. Yet by 1996, as a result of the changes that we made to benefits, it had fallen to 28,000.
Although there was an increase in the number of asylum seekers recognised as refugees—from 628 in 1988 to 2,240 in 1996—the proportion of successful applicants granted refugee status as a result of genuine applications fell from 23 per cent. to 6 per cent.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burns: I am sorry, but I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I have only seven minutes left.
As hon. Members will know, asylum seekers who claim asylum at the point of arrival in this country are entitled to social security benefits that cover housing, food and other necessities. Rights to benefits have been withdrawn only from those who claim asylum after they have entered this country. It is those people who now pose such an onerous problem for local authorities.
It is worth looking briefly at how that happened. As some of my hon. Friends have said, the situation arose in early August, when a small number of people who had claimed asylum after entering the country, and so had been denied benefits, approached social services departments for aid. After social services provision was refused, four of the asylum seekers sought judicial review against the local authorities concerned, and an interim court order obliged the local authorities to accommodate them while proceedings were pending.
On 8 October 1996, the High Court ruled that local authorities had a duty under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide services as a safety net of last resort to those who, by reason of their circumstances, were unable to fend for themselves.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, with the local authorities concerned—Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Lambeth—appealed against that ruling; the appeal was dismissed on 17 February. We are currently seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords, because we do not accept that the National Assistance Act should apply to adult asylum seekers who are not elderly, infirm or disabled, and who have no need for community care services.
The judgment has had serious consequences for many social services authorities, especially in London. It has imposed a new duty on them to support people for whom they have never before had to provide services. Although the number of people claiming asylum in this country has fallen since the removal of benefits, thus suggesting that the intended disincentive to economic migrants is working, the numbers remain high, and the burden for local authorities is substantial.
On 21 February, 3,501 adults were being accommodated by London authorities, and at least a further 200 outside London. It is not right that such

a financial burden should be imposed on council tax payers, or that services for local people should suffer as a result of the court ruling.
It is precisely because the Government are so concerned about the impact on local authorities of having to house asylum seekers that we are now making a new special grant available to help them to carry the burden. As the House will know, three types of grant are being made available: one for unaccompanied children, one for children accompanied by adults, and the grant for adult asylum seekers, which we approved in Standing Committee yesterday afternoon.
That last grant will allow claims from local authorities up to the equivalent of £165 per person per week, averaged over the relevant period, to help meet the costs of those individuals. In addition, authorities will be able to claim up to £10 per person per week for documented costs incurred in commissioning new premises for housing asylum seekers.
The local authority associations and individual authorities, including Westminster, were consulted on the details of the grant, and have been given guidance on how to claim reimbursement. I certainly accept that Westminster, which has featured prominently in the debate, has a very high number of asylum seekers—292 at the most recent inquiry—but it is not alone in that.
Two other London boroughs currently accommodate more asylum seekers than Westminster, and there are about eight authorities with similarly high numbers. We have listened to what they have said, and we consider that the special grant is a fair and reasonable response to their concerns about adults without children.
The House may be interested to know that the figures from the local authorities show that most of the London authorities are spending less than the £165 per week that we allow. The sums range from a low, in Ealing, of £90 per week, to a high, in Redbridge, of £164 per week. However, two authorities are excluded from that range—Newham, which says that it is spending £205 a week, and Westminster, which is spending about £226 a week.
It must be borne in mind that Westminster is being charged about £226 a week, and the neighbouring borough, Kensington and Chelsea, which is in many ways a similar local authority, about £119 a week. It would be wrong not to take an average figure rather than giving different amounts to different authorities, which would clearly not be any more cost-effective or efficient for the taxpayer. We have no plans to change the existing policy.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kensington and Chelsea is giving cash benefits at the moment, which allows it to save about £30 a head? The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) seems to agree with me that that is illegal.

Mr. Burns: Our legal advice is that it is illegal, but even—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Mr. Wayne Hood

Mr. David Ilinchliffe: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise the circumstances of my constituent, Mr. Wayne Hood, who was convicted on 14 November 1996 of the attempted murder of his former foster parent, Terence Jarvis, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. Jarvis was himself sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on the following day, after being convicted of the indecent assault of several children and young persons in his care over a period of 15 years.
Mr. Hood is a 27-year-old man who spent most of his childhood in care, latterly—from November 1977 until he was able to go into independent living—with Jarvis and his wife in an approved local authority foster home in the Kettlethorpe area of Wakefield. At the time of the offence, Mr. Hood was living in Kettlethorpe with his wife, Tina, and his young daughter.
On the evening of 17 March 1996, after a day's heavy drinking and a domestic dispute about his drinking, Mr. Hood visited the Jarvises' home and stabbed Terence Jarvis. I do not in any way condone Mr. Hood's actions that day, which he deeply regrets, but I believe that they should be considered against the background of his suffering in care over a long period.
The subsequent police investigation of the incident led to Terence Jarvis being charged on 15 April 1996 with four counts of assault and two of buggery between 1972 and 1989, when the four individuals concerned, including Mr. Hood, were aged between six and 16 and in his care. Jarvis pleaded guilty to the four specimen charges of indecent assault, with the two charges of attempted buggery to lie on file.
Terence and Althea Jarvis had been approved as foster carers for the local authority from 1975, and since then had fostered 15 boys, the placements varying in duration from a few days to many years. Althea Jarvis had been employed as a residential worker in a local authority children's home for 18 years, and her husband, who was a self-employed music teacher, had over time become the principal carer. Since 1976, the Jarvises had also fostered a young man with learning disabilities, and in March 1994 Terence Jarvis was approved as a fit person under the small homes regulations, and the young man remained in their care as an adult placement.
It was entirely as a result of the events of 17 March 1996—the attack by Wayne Hood on Terence Jarvis—that a series of disclosures of sexual abuse came about. As a result, an immediate local authority management investigation was launched, the social services inspectorate was informed, and the Jarvises were suspended as foster parents. Subsequently, they were formally de-registered as foster carers, and Terence Jarvis was de-registered as a fit person under the small homes regulations.
An independent counselling service has been established for those people who were directly affected, and the Wakefield area child protection committee has commissioned an independent case review. I am satisfied that the local authority is following the appropriate procedures in investigating the matter, and my sole concern today is to highlight what I believe to be the totally inappropriate four-year prison sentence being served by Mr. Hood.
The Minister will be aware of the public outcry over Mr. Hood's treatment, in view of the appalling catalogue of abuse that came to light during the court case. A campaign to free Mr. Hood has generated a petition signed by many thousands of Wakefield people, but his plight has been a matter of concern far beyond my constituency. I have had letters, including some from people in the Minister's constituency, expressing amazement that Mr. Hood should be behind bars.
Among those showing serious concern about the matter are a number who have had personal involvement with Mr. Hood's care. I have spoken to two people who nursed him in hospital as a baby. They outlined to me the serious difficulties that he had to face from the earliest part of his life.
When I met the Prime Minister recently to discuss the case—I am genuinely grateful for the personal interest that he has shown—I gave him a copy of a letter that I received in December from a couple who fostered Mr. Hood for nearly a year when he was aged seven. The Minister will also have seen the letter, which outlines serious concerns about Mr. Hood's experiences in care long before his placement with the Jarvises.
I am prevented from setting out my detailed knowledge of his experiences before that placement by the fact that Mr. Hood himself is not yet fully aware of the details of the record of his life from an early age. He is exercising his right to access his personal care file, but is at present not familiar with much of the information that it contains. He has, however, consented to my reading his file and quoting from its contents today. I am grateful for the help that I have received from Wakefield district council's director of social services and his staff in accessing relevant information.
I set out my detailed concerns about Mr. Hood's background, as described in the case file, in my letter to the Prime Minister of 26 February, following our personal discussions on the case a fortnight earlier. The Minister has seen a copy of that letter, and will understand its relevance to my concerns. I am especially perturbed about the fact that, at the time of sentencing, the court was aware of Mr. Hood's experiences with Jarvis, but apparently had no knowledge of the problems he had faced during the previous eight years.
Without going into the details given in the letter I have mentioned, it is apparent that Mr. Hood suffered a great deal as a child. The extent of that suffering is evidenced by the amount of time that he spent in hospital during the first 18 months of his life. Having been born on 17 October 1969, he spent from 22 October 1969 to 5 January 1970 in hospital. For the rest of 1970, he was in hospital again from 4 February to 6 March; from 9 July to 12 August; and from 10 October to Christmas. He was admitted again on 11 March 1971 and remained for more than a month, until he was transferred to a local authority children's home shortly after being made the subject of a care order. Most of those hospital admissions were prompted, I believe, by the consequences of serious neglect.
The Minister is aware of the serious concerns expressed about Mr. Hood's subsequent experiences by the foster parents who cared for him before his placement with the Jarvises. That placement broke down, and by the time he reached Terence and Althea Jarvis, in addition to several


short periods with his natural mother, his life had consisted of five periods in hospital, two separate foster placements and five years in a children's home.
In my letter to the Prime Minister, I drew particular attention to the entry on Mr. Hood's case record at the time when he was moved to the Jarvises. The social worker concerned wrote:
Having just experienced the trauma of a failure of a foster home, Wayne would particularly be seeking the reassurance of being loved and accepted".
Instead, he suffered seven years of the most degrading sexual abuse.
I would have thought that such information about Mr. Hood's background was directly relevant to his state of mind at the time of the offence, but I understand that, for various reasons, it was not made available to the court, either before his conviction or before sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but I understand from Mr. Hood's solicitor, Mr. Michael Barber—who has been most helpful in working with me on the case—that various legal technicalities and anomalies meant that the circumstances that I have outlined—particularly the abuse of the young man by his foster parents—could not be accepted as any defence to attempted murder.
Mr. Barber has advised me that the abuse and psychological damage, which clearly amounted to provocation, could have provided a defence if the victim had died. I understand that the lack of discretion to treat such circumstances as a general defence is peculiar to our legal system, but the effect in Mr. Hood's circumstances is very obvious and extremely worrying.
The second aspect of what happened in court has also caused considerable disquiet. In view of the circumstances of the offence, I was astonished to discover—only recently—that the court did not have a pre-sentence report on Mr. Hood's background at the time when he received a four-year prison sentence.
I understand that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 would have required a mandatory pre-sentence report before the imposition of a custodial sentence, unless such a report was dispensed with owing to the exceptional nature of the case. That, however, was amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which removed the mandatory requirement for a report, while still containing a statutory presumption in favour of obtaining and considering such a report before sentencing. I am not arguing that Mr. Hood did not receive a fair trial, but I feel that those two factors must be taken into account in consideration of the appropriateness of his prison sentence.
I have a letter from the West Yorkshire probation service to Mr. Hood's solicitor, Mr. Barber. It was sent at the time when attempts were being made to have the case referred to the Court of Appeal. The letter—written by an experienced and respected probation officer—queries the possibility of a probation officer's report being made available to such an appeal hearing, and states:
I would in any such Report be arguing very strongly for Wayne to be re-sentenced to a Probation Order with a condition he continues to see his counsellor".
I would be very surprised if any court in possession of a detailed pre-sentence report on Mr. Hood's background deemed it appropriate for him to receive a custodial sentence.
The Minister is aware that, because of concerns about Mr. Hood's imprisonment, a hearing took place on 11 December before the trial judge, Mr. Justice Walker,

who declined to reduce the sentence. An application to a single judge of the divisional court of the Court of Appeal for leave to pursue the appeal further was refused on 16 January. Mr. Hood has been advised by his solicitor that, as far as legal procedures are concerned, there is nothing to be gained from pursuing the matter further.
I know that the Home Secretary has powers to order the review of such sentences. He has the power to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in cases in which the sentencing court was unaware of matters that might have affected the sentence, and in which no avenue of appeal exists. I believe, for the reasons I have given, that Mr. Hood's case clearly meets those criteria, and I hope that the Minister will consider exercising those powers in view of the circumstances.
I believe that Mr. Hood has already received more than enough punishment for an action that he deeply regrets. I see little sense in someone who has already been damaged by his experience of the care system as a child being even more damaged by his experience of the prison system as an adult. Mr. Hood is an intelligent, pleasant, presentable young man, who has, in my view, a great deal to offer. His wife and child are standing by him.
Let me end by quoting from a letter that I received from Mr. Hood's employer, Mr. Mark Fisher, for whom he has worked for about seven years. The Minister may be aware that his employers are sending money to him weekly in prison, so that he will have some pocket money to purchase small items.
Mr. Fisher describes Mr. Hood as an honest, hard-working man, whom he has come to regard as a friend as well as an employee. When Mr. Hood is released from prison, he writes,
there is a permanent position of work with my company and hopefully Wayne can be left to get on with a happy family life which is all he ever wanted".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I have listened with care and interest to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I thank him for setting them out so clearly and sincerely. I am aware that, as well as writing to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about Mr. Hood's case, he has raised it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the Minister responsible for dealing with miscarriages of justice, I am always concerned when hon. Members raise matters such as this.
The hon. Gentleman could not have set out more vividly the evident motive and the mitigating aspects of this sorry case. I know that there is also some concern about it in his constituency, and, as he has said, in other constituencies as well.
It seems that, through none of his doing, Wayne Hood was given a poor start in life. Not only was he deprived of the stable support of a caring family which so many of us take for granted; worse still, as we now know, between the ages of eight and 12 he was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of his foster father, Terence Jarvis. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Jarvis has since been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, and I therefore do not propose to say any more about his case.
It is not in dispute that it was Mr. Hood who carried out what must be acknowledged as a very serious offence against the Jarvis family. The issue is the stated harshness of his four-year prison sentence.
I think it only right to say from the outset that, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the representations that he has made so far, real difficulties lie in the way of taking any action in respect of a person's sentence as handed down by the courts, whether through an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy or under statutory powers vested in my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968—to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal. I shall say more in a moment about those avenues, and about the mitigating factors in the case. First, however, let me briefly set out the circumstances in which the offence took place.
The hon. Gentleman himself first drew our attention to the case. I understand that Mr. Hood, who is now in his mid-20s, had only one previous conviction, although I note that that too was for a crime of violence. He had lived with the Jarvis family from the age of eight to the age of 15. 1 understand that he then moved out to stay with friends, but continued to see something of the family over the next 10 years or so.
On a Sunday night in March last year Mr. Hood went out drinking, getting home some time after 11 pm. It may have been the effects of alcohol or, indeed, the depressed state in which he was said to be, but, for whatever reason, there was clear evidence that he next collected a knife from the kitchen and set out for the Jarvises' home.
Meanwhile, Mr. and Mr. Jarvis had also been out for the evening. They got home at about 11.20 pm. Minutes later, Mr. Jarvis saw Mr. Hood come past his kitchen window towards the door. He let Mr. Hood into the house, thinking that he looked a hit the worse for wear. At that point, there was evidence that Mr. Hood had his right hand behind his back, in order to conceal the kitchen knife that Mr. Jarvis was not to know he was carrying.
Mr. Hood started to accuse Mr. Jarvis of breaking up his marriage. Then, producing the knife from behind his back, he stabbed him in the right side of his chest. Mr. Hood pulled the knife out of Mr. Jarvis's chest. Bleeding heavily, Mr. Jarvis staggered to the telephone to call an ambulance, before collapsing in his hallway.
That was not the end of it. Aware of some commotion, Mrs. Jarvis came down from upstairs, saw the knife and what had happened, and went to tend to her husband, who by then seemed to be unconscious on the floor. Mr. Hood pushed past her and stabbed Mr. Jarvis a second time, in the right side of the abdomen, as he lay wounded.
At about this time, the police arrived. They went to the back door, saw Mr. Hood still clutching the knife, and ordered him to put it down. He closed the door in an officer's face. Police went round to the front door. Mr. Hood had the knife at the throat of Mr. Jarvis's foster son, Paul Marshall. He refused to put down the knife or to back away so that someone could attend to Mr. Jarvis. The evidence was that he said, "I hope he dies. He's ruined my life for 10 years."
Mrs. Jarvis, by then hysterical, raised her hands to stop Mr. Hood getting any nearer to her injured husband, but, approaching from behind, he held her chin with one hand while using the other to hold the knife blade to her throat. He told police, "Come closer, and I'll slit her throat and his as well." Ambulance men had by then reached the scene, but Mr. Hood would still not let them near Mr. Jarvis. He said, "No, let him die slowly."
Unexpectedly, at that point Mr. Hood took the knife away from Mrs. Jarvis's throat and held it above her head. Seizing the moment, and with a courageous disregard for his own safety, PC Velickovic grabbed hold of Mr. Hood's arm. He knocked him to the floor, managing in the process to release the knife from the grip of Mr. Hood, who was then handcuffed and arrested.
Mr. Hood was charged in November on three counts: attempting to murder Mr. Jarvis; wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm; and threatening to kill Mrs. Jarvis. He pleaded not guilty to the first count of attempted murder, and guilty to the other two charges.
I have had the benefit of seeing the trial judge's sentencing remarks. It is plain that the court accepted that there was very substantial mitigation, for all the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. However, he also said:
I have made the maximum possible allowance which I feel I can make for the reason that you had to attack Jarvis. I have also fully taken into account the most persuasive submissions made by defending Counsel, who if I may say has so ably represented you at this trial. I do not think, however, that it is appropriate that I should pass a suspended sentence of imprisonment in this case. At the end of the day, you took the law into your own hands and tried to kill him.
In all the circumstances, the most lenient sentence I feel able to pass is a sentence of four years on count I for attempted murder. Count 2 does not arise, and the sentence on Count 3 is 18 months' imprisonment concurrent with the sentence on Count 1".
I note that the hon. Gentleman has raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister his concern that a defence of provocation is not available in the face of an attempted murder charge. The reason why provocation is a defence for murder but not for attempted murder is that the penalties are different. A person convicted of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment; no other penalty is available. A person convicted of attempted murder may be sentenced to life imprisonment, but the judge has complete discretion in setting the sentence. The element of provocation can accordingly be taken into account in sentencing for attempted murder. I hope that that clarifies the point.
There followed an application on 11 December for a review of Mr. Hood's sentence. I have had an opportunity to see the grounds for that application. I note that they contain express reference to the hon. Gentleman's support for Mr. Hood's case. The judge took careful and fresh account of that support, of the case's significant mitigating aspects, of the apparent strength of local feeling that Mr. Hood should have received only a suspended sentence, and of various petitions and newspaper articles.
On the evidence available, however, the trial judge said that the jury's verdict, by definition, proved a specific intent to kill. Moreover, the medical evidence was clear: Mr. Jarvis could well have lost his life. It was thanks only to PC Velickovic's bravery that medical attention reached him in time. Upholding the four-year sentence, the judge said:
I made the maximum possible allowance I felt that I could make for the reasons the defendant had for attempting to kill Jarvis. These reasons were amply established by the evidence, namely the undoubted fact that the defendant had been abused over a lengthy period while the defendant was in Jarvis' care".
The review of sentence procedure did not deprive Mr. Hood of the statutory right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Such an application was


duly lodged. It was around that time that the hon. Gentleman first raised the case with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We explained that, in the face of continuing proceedings, it was wrong for Ministers to comment or take any other action. Mr. Hood's correct course was to place before the court any matters which he and his legal representatives considered relevant to his appeal. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to that effect on 15 January.
I note from the papers that leave to appeal was refused the following day, as the hon. Gentleman said. The single judge remarked:
The offence of deliberately attempting to take the life of another is a terrible offence which calls for a substantial sentence. You had strong mitigation which the Judge took fully into account in passing a lenient sentence, although you do not so regard it. Leave to appeal should not be granted on the ground of a public clamour almost certainly based on an imperfect knowledge of the sentencing factors involved".
I know that the hon. Gentleman has since had a chance to discuss his continuing interest with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to whom he has written again. However, it is against that background that we have been asked so consider taking action in Mr. Hood's case.
None of us would seek to condone the repugnant behaviour of Mr. Jarvis. He abused the trust placed in him as a foster father, and brought untold misery to the life of Wayne Hood, whom he sexually abused as a youngster. He is rightly serving a sentence on his own account. However, as the courts found, even that did not entitle Mr. Hood to pick up a kitchen knife and take the law into his own hands. He came close to killing Mr. Jarvis, and subjected Mrs. Jarvis and her foster son to a fearsome attack. He could have received a life sentence for that, but the courts had regard to the powerful mitigation advanced on his behalf.
The court of trial and the Court of Appeal have both adjudged that the four-year sentence imposed reflected the maximum possible allowance in the given circumstances. As I understand it, even Mr. Hood's lawyers, as the hon. Gentleman said, have concluded that there are no grounds for renewing an application for leave to appeal to the full Court of Appeal.
That being so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are no grounds on which it would be right for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home

Secretary to take action under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to refer Mr. Hood's sentence back to the Court of Appeal for a further review of sentence. It is clearly not for me to offer legal advice to those concerned, but if there are said to be new or unexplored grounds that affect the length of the sentence and that have not already been before the courts, the correct course is to renew an application for leave to appeal.
The new Criminal Cases Review Commission takes up its powers on 31 March. Under section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the normal expectation is that the commission will not take action in a case until or unless all statutory appeal rights have been pursued. Sentencing within the limits prescribed by law, and subject to the right of appeal, is, and will remain, entirely a matter for the courts. It would not be right for the Government to seek to substitute their judgment for that of the courts, the more so when the courts have already taken such careful account of what I accept are powerful mitigating factors in Mr. Hood's case.
For similar reasons, I am afraid that Mr. Hood's case is not amenable to an exercise of the royal prerogative. Above all, the sentencing process should be transparent, and performed, as in this case, by the courts. Length of sentence is a matter for judicial discretion within the limits set by Parliament. It would be a wholly improper exercise of the prerogative to remit any part of Mr. Hood's sentence on grounds that are already before the courts, or were available to be brought before the courts.
I have noted with the greatest of care what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. This is a tragic case in every sense, and one which we have tried to approach sympathetically. He will be aware that I have seen his letter of 26 February to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It describes what a tough and sorry time Mr. Hood had from the earliest age.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if there are new or supplementary grounds of the sort to which he has referred, which those acting for Mr. Hood believe may impact on his sentence, the correct approach is to renew an application for leave to appeal to the full Court of Appeal. I do not wish to deter the hon. Gentleman from pursuing the matter further, if that is his wish, in the most appropriate manner.

Franco-German Armaments Agency

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of British participation in the Franco-German Armaments Agency. Some may judge it an arcane, esoteric matter, yet the fact that so few have heard about it—judging from the attendance this morning, not many more will have heard about it following the debate—does not mean that it lacks military, industrial or even political importance.
Britain's accession to what began as the Franco-German Armaments Agency was accorded so little publicity as to be almost clandestine. There was no statement to the House. It was accorded laconic references from the Dispatch Box in defence debates and in answer to questions. The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996" contained a section on defence procurement and the defence industry, with six unexceptionable paragraphs on procurement policies. The five paragraphs that followed, on collaboration, beg the questions that I shall put today, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement can answer.
Paragraph 434 of the statement says:
Together with our WEU partners, we have also been pursuing the possible establishment of a single European Armaments Agency. Such a body might initially provide a forum for joint armaments research projects while opening the possibility, under the right conditions, of enhanced European co-operation in procurement.
I presume that the body would eventually subsume the work of the West European Armaments Group, the successor under the aegis of the Western European Union of the old Independent European Programme Group.
Paragraph 435 goes on to describe how
The United Kingdom has agreed, in principle, to join with France and Germany in their current work on setting up an armaments agency which offers the potential to maximise the benefits of defence equipment collaboration. This follows the decision to collaborate with these two nations on our requirement for an armoured utility vehicle. The decision underlines the Government's commitment to play a full role in European defence collaboration at both the political and industrial level.
Quite why the multi-role armoured vehicle needs to be produced in collaboration when companies such as GKN, Vickers and Alvis could produce the vehicle perfectly well alone escapes me.
The assumption can now reasonably be made following Italy's accession with the United Kingdom to the Franco-German Armaments Agency that the quadrilateral agency, as it is now called in English, will grow with the accession of further European members and by the accretion of responsibility for additional equipment programmes into the fully fledged European armaments agency described in the defence White Paper. It must be asked why there is this preoccupation to participate in such bureaucratic European structures. It is more a feature of continental than British governance and there are further questions to be answered.
The Maastricht treaty's declaration on WEU specifically mentions
enhanced co-operation in the field of armaments with the aim of creating a European armaments agency
as a proposal to be examined further. The provisions in the Maastricht treaty on a common foreign and security policy relating to defence have always been taken seriously within the Franco-German-Italian axis in Europe.
Paragraph 1 of article J4 of the treaty states that the common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including framing of a common defence policy which might
in time lead to a common defence.
Paragraph 2 of article J4 states:
The Union requests the Western European Union (WEU) which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications.
The European Union has long held ambitions to arrogate to itself jurisdiction in armaments collaboration—indeed, ever since the Klepsch report on the subject to the European Parliament many years ago, perhaps as long ago as the good old days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you and I were members of the British delegation to WEU—with the objective of finding an entrée to wider defence competence for the EU.
If anyone harbours any doubts of where Franco-German ambitions lie, he should read the text of the Franco-German common security and defence concept document issued after the bilateral summit in Nuremberg on 9 December 1996. It speaks of
The common destiny uniting France and Germany.
The preamble is unambiguous. It says:
In the European Union our two countries will work together with a view to giving concrete form to a common European defence policy and to WEU's eventual integration into the EU.
The guidelines for armaments co-operation in paragraph 4.3 of the defence concept document are even more specific. They are worth quoting verbatim. They say:
Greater Franco-German armaments co-operation is not just in our bilateral interest since it also meets the objective of building a European armaments policy. It must in particular be the mainspring of a European solution to the general rationalisation of the European armaments sector. It will thus constitute an essential component of the common foreign and security policy and the common defence policy called for by the Maastricht treaty and a significant step towards the emergence of a European security and defence identity. The most economical solution must be resolutely sought for the requirements expressed by the armed forces and the establishment of a competitive European defence technological and industrial base. This necessitates common rules in the CFSP framework for the procurement and transfer of defence equipment within the European Union and for exports to non-EU states.
That implies an extension of EU competence in armaments procurement, transfer and—interestingly enough—exports, which are rightly matters for national Governments alone.
Just to confirm the goals of French armaments collaboration policy, it is worth reading the interview of Mr. Helmer, the French directeur general des armaments, or DGA—the procurement chief—in Defence News this week.
What is important to us now is that the Organisme Conjointe de Cooperation en Matiere d'Armement"—
OCCAR, the defence agency about which the debate is being held—
obtain a legal personality that will give it the ability to award contracts without having to go through the cumbersome administrative procedures of national procurement agencies and to receive multi-year financial commitments from member Governments.
How that is compatible with effective parliamentary control of expenditure in national Parliaments is not clear to me. Nor is the idea of multi-year financial perspectives,


in the European jargon, appealing to someone like myself, who of course went through all the trauma of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
One should note that even this morning our own European Standing Committee B has been examining the European Union's Court of Auditors report on expenditure of the Union in which it is quite clear that more than 10 per cent. of expenditure is unaccounted for. One therefore wonders whether those European practices—I will not say Spanish—of fraud, waste and malpractice, now endemic in the EU, may not transpose themselves into the new bureaucracy to be formed as the European armaments agency.
It is again instructive for us to bear it in mind that our own National Audit Office, in a report just published on the latest Court of Auditors report on the European Union, confirmed that effective control of expenditure of taxpayers' money within the Union is almost non-existent. I hope that the same will not be true of the European armaments agency, although I must confess to having my doubts.
Although there is informed comment in the press and specialist circles that, ultimately, OCCAR will aspire to come under the aegis of WEU, it was not spawned by it. Nevertheless the question of to whom it will be responsible is very much a key one, as is how it will not develop protectionist, pro-European and anti-American preferential tendencies in its procurement policies. I have long deprecated the United Kingdom's propensity to be sucked along in the Franco-German slipstream.
Even the location of the OCCAR headquarters in Bonn, presumably to fill office space soon to be made redundant by the impending move of the German Federal Government to Berlin, is significant. I remember how my repeated pleas for the collocation of all the institutions of WEU at County hall, across the river, when its permanent council was already in London, fell on deaf ears in favour of Brussels.
If the founding document for the establishment of OCCAR, signed last year by my noble Friend Lord Howe, is studied, it looks clearly like a blueprint for a burgeoning bureaucracy, just as the Maastricht treaty, when studied, looked exactly like what it turned out to be—the blueprint for a united states of Europe.
European armaments collaboration has not especially benefited from the activities of agencies and their attempts at control. Certainly the NATO Multi-role Combat Aircraft Management Agency for Tornado Development and Construction and the NATO European Fighter Management Agency for the Development and Construction of the European 2000 do not seem to be models to me. Bilateral programmes such as the Jaguar, the family of three Franco-British helicopters, and now the Italian-British programme for the Merlin, have always been more effective than multinational programmes in Europe.
One must remember that American collaboration with the Goshawk—the T45—the AH64 Apache for our own Army and the C130J Hercules for the Royal Air Force have brought considerable benefit to British industry. Such collaborations must always be an option, as should the outright purchase of items of equipment unique within their class, such as the C 17 Galaxy heavy-lift transporter.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence put it well in his speech on the defence estimates on 14 October, when he said:
European industry must strengthen itself to face the competitive challenges that lie ahead …the Government want to give political support to changes in Europe that are industrially driven. Industrial logic should dictate the formation of industries in Europe, not political diktat."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 486.]
Hear, hear, say I.
I only trust that OCCAR does not, over time, frustrate that commercially driven, competitive, anti-protectionist British policy, which, by and large, has secured the interests of the United Kingdom's defence industries and the needs of the United Kingdom's armed forces so well.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing a debate on a most important subject. The title of today's debate is something of a misnomer because what started as a proposal to create a Franco-German Armaments Agency has now changed. Instead, and because of the Government's decision to participate from an early stage, we are now equal partners in a four-nation armaments structure with France, Germany and Italy.
That initiative, for which a four-nation memorandum of understanding was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by my noble Friend and ministerial colleague, Lord Howe, in Strasbourg on 12 November last year, represents an important opportunity for its participants. Increasing costs and falling resources have made greater efficiency in how we produce defence equipment essential. The initiative, if correctly managed, will be a means of collaborating more efficiently and effectively. Our membership is evidence of the United Kingdom's continued commitment to furthering European defence collaboration. European collaboration continues to be an important aspect of our procurement policy, and one which does not conflict with maintaining strong co-operative links with the United States.
The agency is now known by its acronym OCCAR. My hon. Friend brilliantly pronounced the French meaning of it, but in English it could well mean the Organisation for Collaboration and Co-operation in Armaments—I tend to cheat. Through our membership, it will pursue value for money and maximum competition in defence procurement. It clearly makes no sense to continue those past practices that have not been entirely successful, nor to create a new multinational structure for each collaborative project launched.
The establishment of the agency is an opportunity to create a centre of excellence—an organisation that will have at its disposal a portfolio of collaborative skills and techniques to provide the optimum procurement solution to the nation's purchasing requirements. We now have the prospect of harmonising the procurement policies of the four major western European arms producers. Success will mean better collaborative ventures.
The United Kingdom actively pursues defence equipment collaboration with our European allies and the United States when collaboration satisfies our military requirements and provides value for money. Membership of the four-nation agency represents no change in the


United Kingdom's procurement policy. There is no suggestion of any move toward European preference policies. My responsibility is to deliver cost-effectively to this country's armed services the battle-winning equipment that they need and deserve.
The majority of UK collaborations are with our major European partners, because this recognises that effective collaboration is most easily achieved by partnership of equals or near equals. Nevertheless, given the capabilities and competitiveness of the United States industry, some equipment will and should be procured from the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was right to insist that co-operation with the United States should continue to be a significant factor in this country's defence procurement plans.
Not surprisingly, the Government's view is that the best way—probably the only way—to guarantee the worldwide success of the British defence industry is to ensure that it is competitive. To gain the full benefits of competition, it is vital for industry to compete in the world market—allowing itself and its products to measure up against the best—and to win. European preference policies simply do not allow industry to do so. We need to encourage open international markets. It is in our interests to reap the rewards of competition, of technological innovation, and of better products that represent true value for money.
On average, each year my Department spends about £800 million on co-operative projects. Germany, France and Italy are our major European partners. They are also the nations which, with the UK, make up the bulk of the European industrial base. Working together in the OCCAR creates potential for significant cost and efficiency benefits.
The United Kingdom is a committed and reliable collaborative partner, with a long history of defence procurement collaboration. We are the major partner in the Tornado project, the most successful European collaborative venture to date with about 1,000 aircraft ordered. We are playing a leading role in a range of important projects in western Europe which will provide our armed forces with some of the next generation of equipment.
However, if collaborative programmes are to offer our armed services the equipment that they need, equipment which is affordable and able to compete in the world market, we must improve on past performance. The UK's involvement in the new initiative from an early stage has allowed us to participate fully in the organisation's development and subsequent operation. Our aim has been to set up an organisation that follows best procurement practice; one that adds value, not bureaucracy; one that will lead to effective collaborative ventures, producing top-quality equipment in a way that is cost-effective for the taxpayer. I believe that our partners share that vision.
We need to adopt a more commercial approach when establishing future co-operative programmes and their supporting structures. We need to avoid wasteful practices that only distort the market and reduce the economic benefits to be derived. In the past, the obvious benefits of co-operation—increased standardisation, interoperability, shared development costs, longer production runs and reduced unit costs—have been dissipated by working

practices antipathetic to efficiency and effectiveness. The juste retour principle, for example, only frustrates a truly competitive environment.
We should not procure from suppliers simply because they are allocated an element of a country's work share; effectiveness and competitiveness must first be proven. We cannot subsidise unnecessary duplication of facilities to satisfy purely national, rather than economic, needs. We should look to taut commercial management, preferably with responsibility for the co-ordination and delivery of the programme to time and cost, vested in a single prime contractor. We do not want—we can no longer afford—the overhead expense of large multinational project offices second-guessing industry and complicating the contractual relationship with the supplier. We want lean organisations with no international duplication of staffing.
The potential for improving efficiency in co-operative endeavours sits well with any responsible Government keen to maximise value for money from their expenditures and to give their service personnel the equipment that they need to do their job effectively. The OCCAR offers a channel for a worthwhile and meaningful coalescence of view and practice.
Procurement decisions can be a powerful tool in shaping the defence industrial base, although industry must be in the forefront if commercially viable companies are to be promoted. Governments must first remove the obstacles, especially in terms of ownership. There is a great deal to be done if the European defence industry is to be placed on a rational footing, and we cannot be complacent. If European defence projects are to be successful, we must have successful European companies to deliver them. That will be difficult, if not impossible, if nations always put their own short-term interests first. We hope and expect that the experience of working together in the agency will offer encouragement to European industry to seek ways to reorganise and restructure itself.
When the four major European defence industrial players come together in this way, there is significant opportunity for improvements to the collaborative process. The agency will be run on two levels: a board of supervisors, formed by the national armaments directors of each nation, where decisions must be unanimous, and an executive level, running day-to-day operations. The organisation's senior management reflects its quadrilateral nature. A Frenchman, Mr. Prevot, is the first to fill the director's post and his current deputy is German. There are two divisional leader posts; the UK will head the procurement and finance division and Italy the future programmes division.
The agency's board of supervisors met for the first time on 4 February 1997 to launch the organisation officially. The agency is now able to deal, formally, with the management of collaborative programmes. The agency is in the process of developing detailed procurement and programme management procedures for the programmes that it will run.
The UK envisages a policy that allows for flexibility of approach across a range of programmes. The promise offered by the harmonisation of the procurement policies


of Europe's four largest arms producers is considerable and, although I do not underestimate the difficulties ahead, it is an object well worth pursuing. The participants have already made some progress by agreeing that procurement should be based on competition and that rigid work share related simply to a nation's financial contribution, not its industry's competitiveness, should be a thing of the past.
A range of collaborative programmes with UK involvement is being considered for the new agency. The existing Franco-German-UK COBRA—counter battery radar—programme may be our first programme to be managed within the new structure. We intend the multi-role armoured vehicle programme to be managed by the quadrilateral agency. If chosen to meet our operational requirements for satellite communications, the TRIMILSATCOM programme has also been identified as a candidate for management under the new structure.
On the practical front, a great deal of work continues on establishing and developing the structure of the organisation and its working rules. There is much to be gained from establishing commonly understood and accepted approaches to programme management, contract principles and law, financial management arrangements and all the other practicalities involved in collaborative programmes. A common "stock" of principles, practices

and staff to be drawn on as new collaborative ventures are set up offers the prospect of economies in time and money.
The organisation currently has eight staff, with one from the UK, and nations are considering plans to expand the staff to a maximum of 30 by the end of 1997. The UK will contribute five personnel, Italy will also contribute five and France and Germany will contribute 10 personnel each.
At this stage fixed staffing levels cannot be quantified, as they will depend on the number of programmes managed in the agency. Nations will review progress annually. Staff costs, in terms of pay and allowances, will, at least initially, be a national liability. Other administrative costs are to be divided between the four partners, with France and Germany shouldering 33.3 per cent. each of total costs, while the UK and Italy contribute 16.7 per cent. each. The initial UK financial contribution is estimated at about £400,000 for the first year. That will cover the costs of UK manpower as well as a share of the building and administrative costs, including setting-up costs.
Legal status is being pursued for the new structure. The various options to achieve it are currently being investigated, and one possible means of achieving it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael): Order.

M80 (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am most grateful for having secured this Adjournment debate. The M80 extension between Stepps and Haggs is crucial to my constituents, and I want to set out why I believe that the decision to route the motorway through the urban part of my constituency is wrong.
I have today received a letter from the Minister setting out many of the issues in detail. It was most courteous of him to write to me before today's debate—I appreciate it very much.
I have a long history of involvement with this issue. In 1983, I became the Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, having been the Member for Cumbernauld since 1979. At that time it formed part of east Dunbartonshire. The issue had been live even before then; I inherited an assumption that the road would pass along the A80. But circumstances since have changed radically.
The proposed motorway is of six lanes, with hard shoulders and a central reservation. The motorway envisaged in 1979 was an upgrade to the standard of the M80 between Haggs and Dunblane, or a—more recently constructed—motorway extension between the Townhead interchange and Stepps.
A decision had been taken before 1979 to develop housing, industry and recreation to the north and west of the A80, and to bring on new developments to the south and south-east of the A80 at Condorrat. That housing and that industry have since come into being and are in place. So those of us—there were many besides me—who had been content with an upgrade were faced with a new and different situation. I grew increasingly worried about what might happen and I tried, largely in vain, to raise the profile of the issue.
As the Minister will know, I tabled many parliamentary questions over the years, particularly at the start of each parliamentary Session, in an endeavour to find out how we stood. It was clear that the Government, too, would have to look again at their position; this they did in the light of developments. Their preferred option was the Kelvin valley option. I shared that view, as I still do.
I shared that view with Strathclyde regional council, the largest roads authority in the country at the time. I shared that view with Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council. I shared it with almost all local councillors—I believe that only two of them dissented from the consensus. I shared that view with political allies and opponents alike. I share it with Cumbernauld development corporation. I share it with community councils. I share the view expressed by North Lanarkshire council, the current roads authority.
Once the Government had finally made up their mind, I had no option but to say where I stood. I stand in total opposition to the construction of the motorway through Cumbernauld. It will blight some 2,500 households. It will place at risk the inward investment and the jobs that go with that investment in the industrial area on the Mollinsburn to Condorrat corridor. Those jobs were hard won in the teeth of international competition; they are jobs for my constituents and for people from the surrounding area.
The motorway will place at risk the major distributive industries that we have won because of Cumbernauld's untrammelled access to the motorway system. Those industries include Transhield and Storeshield, which are responsible for distributing in Scotland, Northern Ireland and part of the north of England all the goods that can be purchased from Marks and Spencer stores. Curry's is also located in Cumbernauld, as is the Co-op. Their case for being in Cumbernauld has to do with its location and, as I have said, the town's untrammelled access to the motorway system.
The motorway will pollute the town. It will damage heritage sites at Mollins and Castlecary. It will damage the landscape at Mollinsburn and Castlecary glen. The disruption will be horrendous, both for Cumbernauld and for Kilsyth, Croy and Queenzieburn. Kilsyth will be disrupted all along the length of the Stirling road. I do not think that that road, at Kilsyth, will cope, either as a structure or with the congestion. Even the buildings in that part of Kilsyth will be adversely affected.
The pollution in Kilsyth during the years of construction will be appalling. I must tell the Minister and the people of Kilsyth—a great deal of misinformation is being put out on this subject—that I do not believe that there will be any gain from the Government's decision for the town of Kilsyth. What is more, the economy of Scotland will be affected if a main artery of communication is continually congested for years to come.
I accept that no one wants a motorway anywhere. I understand and respect the integrity of those such as Care 80 and the Friends of the Kelvin Valley who have sought to offer other proposals. But in common with all the authorities I accept the need for the completion of the motorway network. We are now long past the stage of other proposals, lines of route or alternatives.
The Government have made their choice of route. The Minister has been helpful in keeping me advised as to the procedures involved, and I understand that the orders will be laid later this year for the construction of the motorway, for purchasing the land, and so on.
I have been less than happy with the way public policy in this matter has been influenced, not least by quangos and other organisations loosely described as voluntary organisations. I understand the role of Scottish Natural Heritage, although I question its view. I am grateful to Mr. Magnus Magnusson, the chairman, who ensured that I was properly advised of that body's position when he and SNH made a presentation of their work to Members of Parliament here at Westminster two weeks ago. It was extremely helpful.
I have written to the Secretary of State about the role of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. That organisation received large sums of public money, most notably from Cumbernauld development corporation. The trust's annual report and accounts for 1996 show an entry "Cumbernauld endowment—£930,868." The trust has stewardship of land formerly held by Cumbernauld development corporation, including Seafar forest which will be badly disturbed and badly affected by the A80 upgrade, if it proceeds.
I am less than satisfied with the role played by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. I am uneasy about the trust's high profile and highly partial style in influencing the decision. I believe that its activities have contributed to creating a divide among the people in my constituency that is less


than helpful. My further actions in relation to the Scottish Wildlife Trust will depend on the Secretary of State's response to my letter. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today.
Along with my constituents, I recognise that we must deal with the situation as it exists. I have therefore written to the Government asking that I be advised about the detail of the procedure to be followed. My constituents must be properly advised as to their rights. I have asked to be advised about who constitutes a bona fide objector; what is a bona fide objection; when the orders will be laid; and the steps to be taken thereafter.
I want to stop the motorway being built, and I know that that is what the overwhelming majority of my constituents in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth want. I shall continue to represent what I believe to be the best case for the well-being of my constituents in what remains of this Parliament, and I hope in the next. In challenging the Government's decision and seeking a public inquiry, I know that I speak for the majority of my constituents, whose concerns and anxieties over the matter are well founded.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) on his success in obtaining the debate, and on giving us the opportunity to discuss our proposals. I am glad to see so many other right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber—the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). It occurs to me that, had the decision gone the other way, I would have had to reply to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
We looked into the matter as objectively as we could and weighed up all the arguments. We believed that it was essential to make a decision. It may help the House if I explain that the intention is to publish and lay the orders in May. They should be ready at that time.
The road is one of Scotland's most important inter-urban and longer-distance trade links. It is also one of the busiest. Traffic congestion is the norm during the morning and evening peaks. The road carriageway is more than 30 years old, and disruption during essential road maintenance can cause severe problems. The result is that the route has become a bottleneck. Problems on the A80 produce knock-on effects elsewhere and can reduce the performance of a large part of the Scottish strategic network.
There is a clear consensus that action is required. The busiest section of the road routinely carries around 70,000 vehicles a day, which is well above its efficient capacity. Future growth will exacerbate the problem. We believe that an upgrading to full motorway standard with additional capacity is essential. The Government's private finance initiative is giving us the means to bring the scheme forward soon. The key question is the choice of the route for the eastern section.
I have listened with interest to the concerns expressed about the choice of the preferred line. A series of studies into route options was carried out over the past 10 years. The choice came down to a line north of Cumbernauld—the Kelvin valley route—and the widening of the existing A80.
There are strong arguments for and against each option, but the differences in cost and economic performance between the options are not significant. The main debate therefore centred around the environmental effects. Opposition to the Kelvin valley route is a reflection of the value placed by the wider community on the quality of the countryside and its landscape, flora and fauna. The concerns about the A80 upgrading are equally understandable. There is proper concern about the impact on the people and property likely to be directly affected. The potential for delay and disruption during construction is a major issue for the thousands of people who use the route every day.
We have consulted widely on the issue. Our choice has been made on the basis that we can mitigate against the adverse environmental impacts of the A80 widening. The Kelvin valley impacts, by contrast, would have a much longer-term effect.
Given the difficult environmental issues involved, we embarked on an extensive public consultation exercise before identifying our route preference. That involved a number of steps. The first was a series of round-table discussions with local interest groups, local authorities and other bodies. Local exhibitions and workshops for the public were then held at four locations in the area. The process culminated in a consultation forum during which all the consultees presented their views through their chosen delegate.
There is no doubting the strong views held for and against each option. The report on the process emphasised the willingness of the local people to listen to those with opposing views and to debate the matter in a constructive manner.
We did not expect a consensus view as a result of our consultations. Views are too polarised for that to be a realistic aspiration. However, we wanted to enable all those with an interest to feed their views into the assessment procedure. We now have a clear understanding of the issues of real concern. Armed with that information, we identified a preferred option and we can now focus on addressing those issues in the development of our proposals.
The major concern about the Kelvin valley route was the effect on the rural environment. The route presents a severe threat to over 20 ecologically significant sites. It would damage the remains of Antonine's wall and it would affect the environs of the Forth and Clyde canal—a waterway of great recreational potential. As the House will be aware, British Waterways received support to the value of £35 million from the millennium fund to regenerate the canal corridor. The Kelvin valley section of the canal is considered to be the most attractive on the whole route.
The impact on the wider landscape would also be severe. The scale of the road and its earthworks and structures would have a major impact on the rural character of the landscape, as would the traffic on the road. There would also be impacts on communities within the Kelvin valley. The route would affect a large number of farms and rural properties and would cause intrusion on the fringes of Kilsyth, Banton and other communities.
Lastly, the A80 would remain a very busy road. Over 20,000 vehicles a day would continue to use it and the result would be two major parallel roads within a narrow corridor.
Careful design and appropriate mitigation measures would, in our view, limit the adverse impact. A great deal of effort has been made in that regard, but many effects would be permanent.
Three main concerns connected with the A80 route were emphasised during our consultations: disruption during construction, safety, and quality of life.
The construction of the route is likely to take more than three years. In view of the delays and disruption during even short-term maintenance on the route, many find that an appalling prospect. Long queues are feared on the main road. Of possibly greater concern is the temptation for drivers to divert to unsuitable local roads. Construction noise and dust are inevitable.
Safety is also an issue. Major roadworks have a poorer safety record than unrestricted sections of road. Diversion to unsuitable routes has clear safety implications. The novel design solution at Castlecary viaduct could cause dangers if inadequately signed. Impacts on properties adjacent to the road including land loss, noise and fumes, blight and reductions in property values are also matters of concern.
We understand those concerns and we have great sympathy for them, but they should not be exaggerated. They can be addressed, and they can be addressed with more success than the problems associated with the Kelvin valley. That conclusion lay at the heart of our choice.
The concern about the management of the construction process is a central issue. We are concluding the development of plans to ensure that traffic will be managed without undue delays and congestion during the construction period. If we had not been confident about that, we would not have been able to make the route choice that we have made. The proposals will be published in detail when we promote the scheme.
Widening a heavily trafficked road on-line is easier than carrying out on-line maintenance. The extra lanes being built can be used to accommodate the flow of traffic. Concrete barriers allow construction to take place safely, cheek by jowl with the live carriageway. Provision was made for future widening when the existing road was built in the 1960s. The wide central reservations and verges will allow for the necessary flexibility in construction and will accommodate a large part of the widened road.
The private finance initiative is an ideal contract strategy for such schemes. We will be able to specify the level of service on the road and provide sound financial incentives to achieve that. It will be a prerequisite that two lanes are maintained in each direction in all but exceptional circumstances during the construction.
It has been suggested that a public local inquiry should be held to consider our proposal. For a scheme of this size, a public inquiry is inevitable. Under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, any objections from affected landowners or statutory consultees would require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth has made clear, we would also hold an inquiry if we had significant objections from others. However, before an inquiry can be called, we require to publish our proposals in detail and to provide

sufficient information to enable the public and the relevant consultees to take an informed view. That is the next step in the process.
During maintenance on the A80, regular travellers divert on to the A803 and roads through the residential parts of Cumbernauld. That is primarily because maintenance work on the existing road reduces the carriageway to a single lane in one or both directions, with long queues as a result. The construction method for widening will keep two lanes open in each direction and thus avoid that major problem, but some people will still be tempted to divert. A strategy is therefore required to ensure that that will not be a significant issue.
Surveys are being carried out during the on-going maintenance works. Any undesirable diversion of traffic from the A80 to other routes will be identified. Signing, traffic calming and possibly even access restrictions will be discussed with the local roads authority to limit such diversions during the upgrading work.
The safety of the novel solution of taking the road under the Castlecary viaduct by dividing the carriageways has been very carefully addressed. The design, which is fully in accordance with national design standards, is a considerable improvement on the present substandard layout. It will be well signed and the running lanes will diverge gradually so that the layout is clear to drivers. Greatly enhanced protection of the viaduct piers will be provided by concrete barriers. The design principles have been endorsed by the traffic police and safety audit teams and the detailed design will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by them. That idea will save much taxpayers' money and greatly reduce the environmental impact of the road on Castlecary glen.
An obvious concern to people who live adjacent to the existing road is its physical impact on their properties and any increase in traffic noise or reduction in air quality. There is scope to reduce noise levels at properties adjacent to the widened road by providing earth screening bunds where space is available, or noise barriers where space is more limited. Those will cut traffic noise very effectively. For the majority of properties in the corridor, there will be no increase in noise. Indeed, far from increasing noise, in many cases, there may be a reduction. A bund or fence will also reduce the visual intrusion of the road and traffic and the effect will be further softened by tree planting and other landscaping.
Air pollution from vehicle exhausts is also set to reduce significantly as increasingly stringent emission standards begin to bite. The important factor in this case is that the pollution from free-flowing motorway traffic will be much lower than the pollution from the congested and deteriorating conditions of the existing route. The on-line upgrading may not remove the traffic from the route, but the proposals will mitigate many of the adverse effects of the traffic and thereby make life better for many people.
Congestion on the A80 is increasingly affecting day-to-day business activity in Cumbernauld and is reducing the attractiveness of the town to investors. I am convinced that having direct access to the new motorway can make things only better. During construction, ensuring that two lanes of traffic are maintained in each direction throughout the working day will limit any adverse effects on Cumbernauld businesses and on the high proportion of long-distance commercial traffic on the route. Given our confidence that we can manage the


traffic during construction, the impact on the distribution business that is centred in Cumbernauld should also be manageable.
The detailed proposals for the preferred route are being worked up. An environmental statement is also being prepared to explain in detail what the environmental effects will be, both positive and negative. When the plans are finalised, public exhibitions will be arranged to provide the necessary information to all concerned. That will coincide with the forthcoming publication of the statutory orders. As I have said, I hope that that can be done in May. If there are significant objections to the route, a public local inquiry will be held, which is inevitable.
The upgrading of the A80 is a vital scheme within the trunk road programme. It will be one of the final links in the central Scotland motorway network and will bring enormous benefits to the whole of Scotland. We are committed to delivering those benefits. Doing nothing could also bring its environmental problems.
In taking forward the construction of the new motorway, we want to ensure that the impact of the new road on the community that borders it—and the impacts during construction—will be reduced to the minimum level practical. If we did not believe that the impacts could be contained, we would not have adopted widening as the preferred option.
I understand and sympathise with many of the concerns that have been expressed today, but our strategy is bold and ambitious. We intend to improve the road, minimise intrusion on the community and protect the environment. I look forward to working with all interested parties to those ends.
Concern has been expressed about the proposals' impact on property values. As we would all expect, anyone who has land or property acquired by compulsory purchase will be compensated fully. The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 also provides for

compensation where the value of a property is affected by noise, fumes or dust from the new road, and claims for that can be submitted up to six years after the new road comes into use. Noise insulation grants are available to home owners when the noise rises above a certain level. Where properties will be acquired in due course for the new road, they are usually impossible to sell, and where owners wish to move, there exist powers to buy in advance.
Where houses are not to be acquired, but are severely affected by the new road, there are discretionary powers to purchase, but, as I have said, our aim is to minimise the number of people who will be adversely affected and the net result of the proposals should be an improvement on the present effects of the A80 for most people.
The existing A80 forms a substantial barrier in the communities of Muirhead and Moodiesburn, with their at-grade junctions and frontage access, due to the heavy traffic flows. The new road bypasses those communities to the north, with a substantial reduction in severance. The remaining two thirds of the route lie through the new town of Cumbernauld, which was designed around it and which incorporates grade-separated junctions and frequent bridge crossings. All those existing crossings will be rebuilt as part of the proposals and there will be no increase in severance as a result.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden on the thorough way in which they have represented their case on behalf of their constituents. The further examination of this will of course be for public local inquiry. I also express thanks to the communities concerned for having put their case reasonably and clearly, which has made our job easier in the roads department. We believe that we have considered their representations as objectively as possible.

It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Lockerbie

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of the Lord Advocate to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 14 February, by whom the allegations were considered and the conclusions drawn that proof of the Scottish case against the two accused Libyans did not depend on evidence that Mr. Thurman might give. [17299]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The allegations concerning Mr. Thurman are a matter for the United States authorities. I am advised that the United States inspector general's report, after investigation of the allegations, has not yet been published. When the American allegations became known, Mr. Thurman's role in the Lockerbie case was considered by the then Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. As long ago as October 1995, he advised the hon. Gentleman that proof of the Lockerbie case does not depend on evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.

Mr. Dalyell: Now we know that the Crown Office has slavishly followed information from the United States. At the time, did the Americans know that Mr. Thurman would be accused and lose his job for having fabricated forensic evidence? If it was not Mr. Thurman, who was it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously, the Law Officers are well aware of the allegations. However, the report has not been published, and it would be wrong to prejudge its outcome. I repeat what I have already said: the Lord Advocate has never suggested that Mr. Thurman did not play a significant part in the investigation. The Lord Advocate and his predecessor have chosen their words carefully in saying that the case does not depend on evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who live in Lockerbie or, like me, near it firmly believe that the investigations conducted by the Dumfries and Galloway police, the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate show that the alleged criminals in Libya must be brought to book in a court in Scotland or the United States, and that diversions to other possible suspects only cause harm?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was at Lockerbie literally within hours of the tragedy and atrocity. I believe that the Law Officers would not have brought forward the accusations if they had not been based on very strong evidence.

Dr. Godman: Despite the excellent work done by the police force mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the Prime Minister's acknowledgement to me, some months ago, that any such trial will be held in Scotland and not in America, when will the Minister admit that it is highly unlikely that any such trial will take place at the High Court in Edinburgh? Almost nine years have passed since the terrible affair at

Lockerbie, yet we are no nearer to bringing the culprits to trial. Why have the Government failed so signally in the matter?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Those issues could well be addressed to the Libyan Government. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made it clear at the Dispatch Box last Friday that we should look to the Libyan Government to assist with the investigation. He went on to say:
Libya's record of state sponsorship of terrorism is, rightly, a matter of deep and abiding concern."—[Official Report, 28 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 603.]
I reject arguments for a third-country trial for the case, which could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair. We cannot allow alleged terrorists to determine where they are tried.

Mr. John Marshall: Everyone agrees that the Lockerbie disaster was a great human tragedy. Is it not incumbent on hon. Members to congratulate the Scottish police on their investigation, to emphasise that Scottish justice would be even-handed between the alleged criminals and the forces of law, and to condemn those in the House who act as apologists for the evil terrorists of Libya?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have confidence in the Scottish system of criminal justice, which is one of the best in the world. I do not believe that attempts to have a trial elsewhere in Europe would succeed. The Libyans have given no indication that they would co-operate with such attempts.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall try to get my 11th Adjournment debate on the subject.

EU Committee of the Regions

Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of Scottish representation on the European Union Committee of the Regions. [17314]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Scotland is well represented on the European Union Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's proposals for Scotland would reduce a proud and fine nation to a mere region in the European Union?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The shadow Foreign Secretary has made it clear that a Scottish Parliament would be represented by someone with observer status at the Council of Ministers, meaning that Scotland's fishermen and farmers would no longer be represented by a Secretary of State able to speak for the whole United Kingdom.

Dr. Reid: The Secretary of State will be aware that many areas of Scotland benefit from European Union


objective 2 funding, which is due to be revised in the next 12 months. Will he assure us that he will give what support he can to the alliance that has been formed to ensure continuing objective 2 funding for areas in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom that have been badly affected by the decline in the steel or coal industries, or that are liable to be affected by a decline in the defence industries and are eligible for Konver funding?

Mr. Forsyth: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that he thinks that I shall be here in 12 months to conduct the negotiations. I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. We had a good Highlands and Islands Convention meeting on Monday in Stornoway, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), at which we discussed how to tackle objective 1 status.
The hon. Gentleman's comments about objective 2 are also true. It is important to have a united and firm front in the negotiations, which are not about getting money from Europe but about getting our money back from Europe, because we are net contributors.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the present system, Scottish Office Ministers sometimes lead United Kingdom delegations to the Council of Ministers? Does that not underline the significance of the downgrading to observer status proposed by the Labour party?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. At the most recent Agriculture Council, my noble Friend the Earl of Lindsay spoke and led for the United Kingdom. Given that the two common European policies that we have relate to fisheries and agriculture, which are both important to Scotland, it seems an act of sheer crass stupidity to abandon having a strong voice for Scotland in Europe on issues on which the prosperity of our rural areas and our fishing communities depend.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State agree that the efforts of hon. Members of all parties to represent Scotland's interests in the Committee of the Regions are undermined by the shambles of the Government's European policy, not least their equivocation on a single European currency? How does he respond to the alarm bells rung by Locate in Scotland earlier this year, which suggested that there was growing anecdotal evidence, particularly from Japanese inward investors, of concern about the level of debate and the equivocation about Britain's future role in Europe? The Secretary of State is a leading arch Euro-sceptic. Are not his policies and the attitudes towards the European Union that he supports more damaging for the future of the Scottish economy than any of the issues of constitutional change about which he talks?

Mr. Forsyth: It would be wrong for me to comment on leaked documents, but, as the hon. Gentleman is relying on a report from a Scottish newspaper, I had better set the record straight. The said document, which I have studied, makes no reference to economic and monetary union, but it does warn about the dangers of the social chapter to our competitiveness and our ability to attract inward investment. I have a feeling that the

hon. Gentleman will not refer too much to that document in future, as he and the crowd opposite are committed to saddling Scotland with the millstone of involvement in the European social chapter, which would put it at a disadvantage when attracting inward investment.
The hon. Gentleman represents the party that would do most to fragment our country into regions in a Europe of the regions. It is committed to a European super-state, and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be sent packing at the election as a result of those irresponsible policies.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of recent press reports that money is made available through the Committee of the Regions to be spent in Scotland on promoting the cause of the so-called euro. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter and ensure that that does not happen?

Mr. Forsyth: As a general principle, I believe that public money should be spent sensibly. I am not sure that it would be particularly wise to commit any money to that expenditure at present, as public expenditure could be spent more wisely in many other areas. I certainly wish to see resources used where they will be most effective and most directly relevant to the prosperity of the people of Scotland. This project does not seem to be consistent with that requirement.

Council Tax

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the expected levels of council tax for 1997–98. [17315]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Council tax levels will depend on the decisions of individual councils.

Sir David Steel: I thank the Minister for that blinding flash of insight into the financial affairs of Scotland. I seriously thank him and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the courteous hearing that they gave to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in Selkirk, and for rearranging the capping limit for the Scottish Borders council. However, will the Minister accept that new money is not coming from the Government to the council, but that the council is simply being allowed to raise council tax, to mitigate the worst effects of the Government's starvation of local council funds? Does he recognise that, when the Borders council meets tomorrow to make unacceptable cuts, it will also have to make an unacceptable increase in council tax—all of which adds up to a Tory tax?

Mr. Kynoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least being big enough to be thankful for the fact that my right hon. Friend and I listened to his lobbying on behalf of the Borders council. I was surprised that his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not mention that in yesterday's debate. At its request, the Scottish Borders council has the flexibility to spend an extra £924,000.
The council's budget proposals, if no capping was in place, would have increased council tax by 48 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman talks about "unacceptable"


increases in council tax, but the local Liberal Democrat administration wanted to increase council tax even more than that. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the local government settlement is more than fair, and that councils must act responsibly and ensure good value for money in service provision to council tax payers.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that residents in south Ayrshire are absolutely delighted that South Ayrshire council has received an above inflation rate grant this year? Does he agree that there should be an element of optimism— [Interruption.] Well, perhaps not when it is a Labour council. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is cause for some optimism that the council could hold the council tax rate this year?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend works on the same principle as I do. A reasonable settlement that allows South Ayrshire council to increase its expenditure next year by £3.5 million, or 3.21 per cent., should be more than adequate to maintain the level of services and to improve them. My hon. Friend is right: the Labour administration, with the level of cuts that it apparently wants to make, has sought an increase in spending of 7.7 per cent. If the council were to have that spending power, it would have to increase the council tax for my hon. Friend's constituents by 27 per cent. That is what the Labour party is like when it is in power: that is the Labour party in local government in Scotland. The Labour party wants a tax-raising parliament in Scotland. It wants to increase the level of government in Scotland, and to increase spending and taxation. That is the Labour party that we all know still exists.

Mr. George Robertson: Everyone will notice that, once again, the Secretary of State dodges the column and fails to defend the Government's record on local government. Does the Minister realise how much real anger there is in Scotland about the level of council tax increases and the cuts in education, all of which are the Government's responsibility? Why do the Government continue to pretend that extra money is available, when they have put extra burdens on councils? They know that the cost of the gerrymandered reorganisation of local government, for which they were responsible, makes a mockery of their claims about extra money.
The Government have only a few more weeks left on their deathbed. Why do they not repent, and put some of the money that they are holding back for pre-election gimmicks where the people of Scotland want it—into the education of our children?

Mr. Kynoch: Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman used the excuse that he had been stuck on an aeroplane at Glasgow airport for his poor performance at the Dispatch Box. I am not sure what his excuse is today. He implied that the Government will not be re-elected, so I assume that he thinks that his party will be elected. Given that he is critical of this year's local government settlement, he should tell the Scottish people whether he believes that more money should be given to local government, how much and from where. I asked those questions time and again yesterday, but I received no answers. I ask the hon. Gentleman again this afternoon, and I hope that he will tell the Scottish public the answer.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax rises by the Labour party are due to its usual

financial mismanagement? Is he aware of the deep frustration felt by my constituents down south in my English constituency of Sutton and Cheam, who, unlike the Scots, do not receive the generous 40 per cent. support from the Government?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the management of taxpayers' money. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe that we are the trustees of the taxpayer. I sometimes wonder whether the Opposition realise that central Government and local government funding comes from the taxpayer. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend that such mismanagement is a measure of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. The sooner we get the election over and the Government are restored to power, the sooner we will get better value for money for the taxpayer.

King Kenneth III

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to mark the thousandth anniversary of the accession of King Kenneth III to the Scottish throne. [17316]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I see no reason to mark the anniversary of the accession of King Kenneth III, who came to the throne by the violent overthrow of Constantine III. As the only significant event of his reign was the loss of Lothian to the English, who were led by Ethelred the Unready, I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's desire to honour him.

Mr. Home Robertson: The question was inspired by the Prime Minister's hallucinations about 1,000 years of British history. Is the Secretary of State aware that King Kenneth reigned fully 710 years before the Union with England? Is he further aware that King Kenneth lost his seat, so to speak, as a consequence of a rather drastic leadership challenge? I should warn the Secretary of State that such has been known to happen in the Stirling area. Would not the best recognition of 1,000 years of Scottish history and 300 years of British history be a modern constitution with a parliament for Scotland for the next millennium?

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Ethelred the Unready who won Lothian in the year in question. I know that the Labour party seems to have forgotten its principles and its history, but perhaps I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that the first person to talk about 1,000 years of history in the context of the British constitution was the late Hugh Gaitskell. During his speech to the Labour party conference in 1962, he warned of the dangers of a federal Europe and said:
It does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state ‖ it means the end of a thousand years of history.
I advise Opposition Members to learn from their party's history and perhaps start putting principles before their narrow political interest and risking the integrity of our constitution.

Mr. Jessel: Did not the late Hugh Gaitskell insist that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Forsyth: It is correct that the late Hugh Gaitskell was a member of the Procedure Committee which in


1945 established the principle that constitutional matters should be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has placed that in doubt is a disgrace and a threat to the integrity of the House of Commons.

Mr. Canavan: What about King Kenneth I, otherwise known as Kenneth McAlpine of the same clan as Lord McAlpine, who spilled the beans about the Government's skulduggery and is now saying that the Tories must be defeated in the general election in order to clear their heads?

Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman, who is a constituent of mine in Stirling, that I am the Member who represents Bannockburn. When the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose.

Capital Challenge Fund

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the allocation of capital consents via the capital challenge fund for the financial year 1997–98. [17317]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend has today announced full details of the central challenge fund winners. Nineteen bids have been successful in full or in part, with awards totalling £59 million.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am really, really grateful, but perhaps the Minister can put me out of my misery and tell me whether the Scottish Borders council's bid for Hawick has been approved. The bid was well put together and, more than anything else, it provided an opportunity for the health board's plan for a new community hospital and the local enterprise company under the new small towns initiative to come together to form a coherent and integrated approach to social and economic regeneration in the town of Hawick, which is very much needed. If the Minister is about to tell me that he has anticipated all this and has approved the Hawick bid, I will be really very grateful and thankful.

Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman was not grateful yesterday, and we made the announcement today. I am sorry to say that on this occasion the Hawick bid has not been successful. The good news for Hawick, as the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, is that it is one of the pilots for the small towns initiative which was announced a little while ago. It will be up to the local enterprise company and Scottish Enterprise to discuss funding for the projects that are likely for Hawick.
All the bids for the challenge fund were of a high standard and all were judged carefully. Officials from the Scottish Office will be in touch with the local authority in Hawick to discuss how it can modify the bid and come back again for a future challenge fund competition and perhaps be successful.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the people of North Tayside welcome the challenge fund decision. They welcome the fact that the Perth flood prevention scheme is being addressed,

together with the subject of Andover primary school in Brechin, which comes within my constituency after the boundary changes. We welcome the news about Edzell. I have a personal interest in Edzell, because I was the chief flying instructor there many years ago. I am delighted that we are now making progress with developments in that area.

Mr. Kynoch: It never ceases to amaze me where my hon. Friend has been and what he has been involved in, but that is why he will be so successful in the general election.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the fact that Perth and Kinross council's bid for flood prevention works in Perth will be a major beneficiary of the challenge fund. The funding will cover five years, and that shows how the challenge fund bid process can benefit local authorities and enable them to undertake, for the benefit of council tax payers, larger projects than they can tackle under their normal allocations.

Mr. Chisholm: Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether the north Edinburgh bid from my constituency has been successful. How much has been taken out of capital consents to provide some slight reduction in the massive cuts that he has imposed on Scottish local authorities? Does the Minister still think that those cuts are imaginary, as he said yesterday, or is it just his fiddled figures and the so-called savings from local government reorganisation that are imaginary?

Mr. Kynoch: Edinburgh council will receive £7 million for the north Edinburgh project, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that good news for the people in Granton and surrounding areas, who will receive significant benefits. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his allocation for local authorities, he took full account of the provision for the capital challenge fund to put together a package that was fair and reasonable for local authorities.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did not answer my question, so perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) will do so. The Labour party is critical and asks for more money, but how much more would it put into local authorities? At least, the hon. Member for Leith was honest with his party in Dundee when he told it—although he was embarrassed about it—that the Labour party would go into the general election campaign without committing itself to more funding. The hon. Gentleman cannot be his two-sided self, and refuse to come clean with the Scottish public and say that there will be no more money under Labour.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In Perth and Kinross, we are grateful for the announcement today of £18.3 million for the Perth flood prevention scheme, but the Minister will be aware that there is still a shortfall of some £3.5 million on the bid. The rural flood prevention schemes still need £1 million. Six of those schemes are now ready to go ahead. When will the Minister make an announcement about borrowing consents for those schemes?

Mr. Kynoch: I am grateful that the hon. Lady has recognised that we have given something to the flood prevention proposal, because it is not so long since she


told me that, in her opinion, we would not give anything to the scheme. We will consider any application seriously, but some of the applications that she mentions have not yet reached the stage of being schemes. When they have, they will be considered.

Hospices

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representation he has received in respect of the document "The Scottish Health Service: Ready for the Future", with particular reference to the establishment of hospices as resource centres. [17318]

Lord James Douglas—Hamilton: Our White Paper on the future of the Scottish health service has been generally well received. To date, there have been six representations about the initiative on hospices as resource centres. I have also met, at Dr. Gray's hospital, the local group campaigning for hospice provision and I am, and remain, sympathetic to its aims.

Mrs. Ewing: I thank the Minister for his extensive letter on the issue dated 3 March, which I received yesterday. Given his public support and the keen interest that has been expressed in Moray for the establishment of a day hospice, and remembering that the people with friends and family who are terminally ill have to travel to Inverness or Milltimber in Aberdeen, does he agree that—despite the fact that the pilot initiatives mentioned in the White Paper are building on existing hospices—there is a strong case for a hospice in Moray as a resource centre? It would cost only approximately £300,000 per annum and, given the groundswell of support, the generous inhabitants of Moray would contribute substantially to the cost.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am sympathetic to what the hon. Lady says. The initiative in the White Paper is aimed at existing adult voluntary hospices; it is meant to help them spread their expertise. I hope that the hospice campaign and the health board will be able to reach agreement about future services. They both recognise the fact that specialist palliative care for the people of Moray must be improved. We accept that the very best palliative care must be available for those suffering from cancer and other degenerative diseases.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: May I point out to the Minister the fact that the Marie Curie organisation runs the Huntershill hospital in Springburn, and works closely with the national health service? It also operates a house visiting service. Will the Minister give every support to that organisation, which does an excellent job throughout Scotland?

Lord James Douglas—Hamilton: I have the utmost admiration for the Marie Curie organisation and everything that it does in that sphere. We work alongside it and give it whatever moral support we can. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we need to give more practical support, I would be grateful if he would let me know what possibilities he has in mind. We shall respond as positively as we can.

Income Tax

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the mechanisms for the introduction of a separate system of income taxation in Scotland. [17319]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A separate income tax system in Scotland would impose an unwelcome burden on taxpayers and employers, requiring a major change in employers' payrolls. It would place an administrative burden on companies with Scottish and English employees, and cost the typical Scottish family more than £6 per week in extra income tax.

Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the fact that the bureaucracy surrounding the administrative system for a tartan tax would mean incorporating names such as those of Scottish people who live in my constituency of Dover and Deal, those of English people in my constituency, and even those of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster—but that many of them would not pay tax unless they were caught by the 90-day or 183-day rule? Would not that massive bureaucracy have to be paid for out of a tax levied on Scottish pensioners?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not have a clue. I do not know what the costs would be; the people who propose the tax are not prepared to tell us. Certainly employers would have to have two sets of tax tables. Certainly the system would operate on the present residency rules, so Scottish Members of Parliament might be exempt from the tartan tax if they spent more than a certain number of days working outside Scotland. That might encourage many Scottish Opposition Members, especially Labour Members, to attend here more often. That is the only benefit that I can see. As for the bureaucracy, we know that when the previous Labour Government proposed to include such a tax under their Scotland Bill, they were advised by the Inland Revenue that it would take at least five years to put the necessary systems in place. Certainly the system would take time and would be expensive, and the cost would be borne by all taxpayers and all employers.

Mr. McAllion: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that he was the prime mover in introducing a separate poll tax for Scotland—a mad experiment that cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and had to be scrapped within five years? Perhaps he will explain to the House why he continually warns Scottish voters against giving a tax-raising power to a parliament that they would control, while leaving them at the mercy of 22 tax rises imposed by this Parliament, which by definition they can never control.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman wants to mention 22 tax rises, he might also mention 25 tax reductions. As for his point about poll tax and income tax, if he does not understand the difference between poll tax and having different rates of income tax in different parts of the United Kingdom, I suggest that he has a word with the former leader of his party, Neil Kinnock, who warned that


as soon as we start introducing separate tax-raising parliaments in Britain, we begin the break-up of Britain. That is what Opposition Members are committed to.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Among all the things that, as my right hon. Friend has said, are not clear about the possibility of a mad tartan tax under a Labour Government, is not one thing clear—that the tax would be levied on Scottish pensioners? Should not we know whether any estimate has been made of how many of them would have to flee from Scotland to England to avoid that madcap tax?

Mr. Forsyth: I notice that Opposition Members find this funny. To be fair to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), he has confirmed that Scottish pensioners would have to pay the tartan tax; they will get a smaller return on their savings than English pensioners, and people whose pensions have been earned in Scotland will be subject to an extra tax burden. I find it difficult to understand why people in Berwick should have a better return on their pension than people in North Berwick. I dare say that that might well result in people moving south of the border for their retirement. That is a particular wickedness of the policies proposed by Opposition Members.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that taxation should be uniform throughout the nation? Questions are being asked about the taxing powers of a devolved Administration, so will he bear it in mind that while the previous Northern Ireland Government had powers over death duties they refused to use them because that would have put them out of kilter with the rest of the nation? That was a Unionist Administration.

Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree. It is certain that the exercise of separate income tax-raising powers is a threat to the unitary system. It is also the case, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Stormont model, that while Stormont was able to operate in a discrete range of areas—much narrower than is proposed for the Scottish Parliament with its tartan tax-raising power—the quid pro quo was a substantial reduction in representation in the House.
I can see no case at all that is in Scotland's interest that would result in a reduction of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament and the loss of the office of Secretary of State; it is this House that will determine the expenditure by a Scottish Parliament—expenditure that would be considerably greater than the amount spent in England.
The proposal threatens not only the prosperity of pensioners and working people in Scotland but our public services, because it would reduce our voice here at Westminster, where the key decisions are taken, and our ability to defend Scotland's interests.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scandalous admission by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that the tartan tax would be levied against health care provision shows the sick priorities of the Labour party? Should not its slogan be, "Vote Labour and put more politicians before patients?"

Mr. Forsyth: Not only people who have made private provision for health care will suffer: anyone who has a

company car will pay more if it travels on Scottish roads or even if it crosses the border. That seems particularly inequitable. As the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that there is no extra money, the costs of the Scottish Parliament—we estimate them at just under £80 million in the first year—will have to come out of health service, local government and other spending priorities. It is a nonsense proposal from a party that is prepared to put its own interests before those of the people.

Mr. McFall: In his 1992 election manifesto, the Secretary of State, in his modest way, said:
Everyone knows someone who has been helped by Michael Forsyth.
Five years later, as a result of broken tax promises, everyone in Scotland knows someone who has been taxed 22 times over by the Government since 1992.
Is the Secretary of State proud of the fact that the constituents of the 10 Tory Members of Parliament have paid more than £500 million in extra taxes since 1992? Is not that the real tartan tax for the people of Scotland? Can we hope that the Secretary of State, in his last ministerial appearance at the Dispatch Box, will offer the electorate of Scotland one final apology for the 22 tax rises and for the Government's deception of the Scottish electorate in their tax promises in 1992?

Mr. Forsyth: The whole House will have noted that the hon. Gentleman has not been prepared to defend his party's policy of levying a tartan tax on the people of Scotland. The House knows that Labour Members have spent the whole of this Parliament complaining that the Government have not spent enough. That they have the cheek to stand, uniquely in Scotland, on a platform of raising an additional tartan tax, yet complain about taxation levels, beggars the imagination. The truth is that the Labour party takes its votes in Scotland for granted, which is why it wants, uniquely, to tax people in Scotland and not people in England or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Wild Salmon

Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future of wild salmon in Scotland. [17320]

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of wild salmon in Scotland. [17324]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): The recent excellent report produced by Lord Nickson's task force on Scotland's salmon fisheries, subject to consultation, will form the basis of future Government policy in this important sector.

Mr. Hawksley: Has my hon. Friend any specific proposals to restrict the commercial netting of salmon, which seems to be one of the major causes of the reduction in numbers?

Mr. Robertson: My noble Friend's task force has approached the matter head on but, as my hon. Friend will


know, its findings are out for consultation, and I think it only right to wait until the end of that consultation before presenting specific proposals.

Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware that, to celebrate the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Labour-controlled Glasgow city council is to spend a huge amount on red dye, which it will tip into the River Clyde? What will that do to reintroduce wild salmon into that great river? Does my hon. Friend agree that, whereas wild salmon is good to eat and is a source of much employment in Scotland, new Labour is simply slimy and pink?

Mr. Robertson: My noble Friend's task force was not asked specifically to look at the impact of red dye on salmon in the Clyde, but I am sure that, were its members to do so, they would be appalled—as are most people in Scotland—that Glasgow city council is considering spending up to half a million pounds of council tax payers' money on a ridiculous stunt.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that the laws and regulations relating to salmon are unduly influenced by unrepresentative landowning hereditary peers? Is it not right, therefore, that the next Labour Government will wipe them away, and that in future the laws on salmon will benefit everyone, not just landowning lackeys?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not looked at the membership of the task force. There were no landowning hereditary peers on it. It represented all those in Scotland—and, indeed, beyond—who regularly fish for salmon and support the salmon industry.

Mr. Wilson: May I correct the Minister's last statement? The task force certainly did not represent all interests; as usual, the interests that were not represented were those of people who live in the communities where the ownership of salmon, and other natural resources, is in the hands of a tiny minority who are absurdly over-represented—and it is absurd that they are represented at all—in the other place.
When he considers his colleagues' questions, will the Minister recognise that one of the most spiteful and irrational campaigns undertaken by the Government in defence of the riparian owners' interests has been that against the historic industry of salmon netting in Scottish rural communities? How does he defend the fact that, to wipe out salmon netting in those communities, the Government have been prepared to give charitable status to a bogus organisation so that it can buy up the netting stations? They have been prepared to destroy the excellent industry of salmon netting in many parts of Scotland to give all the benefits to riparian owners and the angling interests that sell fishing rights in Scotland's salmon rivers for huge amounts.
Does not all that need reform, and is not getting rid of the unelected interests in the other place a major stepping stone towards rational legislation on such matters?

Mr. Robertson: "Spiteful" and "irrational" are not adjectives that I would use to describe my noble Friend's task force report, but I would use them to describe the hon. Gentleman. Once again, he has shown complete disregard for a proud industry that brings in thousands of jobs, tourists, other visitors and money to the most rural

parts of Scotland, some of which are very fragile and depend on the very people whom he has castigated—and shame on him for so doing.

Health Service Funding

Mr. Dover: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on planned funding levels for the national health service in Scotland. [17322]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have increased spending on the Scottish health service in real terms every year in this Parliament, and are pledged to continue to do so for every year in the next Parliament—a pledge that the Labour party has not matched.

Mr. Dover: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, 43 per cent. of general practitioners are fundholders. Does he agree that, if the Labour party implemented its doctrinaire policies, that would be bad for the national health service and for patient care throughout Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I certainly agree that GP fundholding has produced innovation and flexibility, and our White Paper builds on that. We want to introduce more electronic links to general practices to improve the information available to GPs and reduce the amount of paperwork, as well as develop the role of community hospitals and, above all, make services available as close as possible to patients' homes.

Mrs. Fyfe: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether your eye slipped past the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Many hon. Members would like to discuss the matter. If not, may I—

Madam Speaker: Order. If that question had been in order, I would have called it. It was unstarred. We are getting on with Question 10, on which the hon. Lady has been fortunate enough to be called.

Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had noticed that the hon. Member for Edgbaston was in the Chamber.
On the question tabled by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), does the Minister realise that if £1 million or more had not been paid to Mr. William Duff for ruining patients' teeth, there would have been £1 million more to spend on health care services in Greater Glasgow?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that that dentist performed badly for his clients. I understand that some of them are suing him and that the matter will be properly resolved in the courts.

Mr. Nicholls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of reports in the west country press this weekend that suggest that, in Scotland, it is possible to get on the national health a particularly high grade of blood plasma product that is not available to English health authorities? It is further suggested that Scottish health authorities get a specific grant to enable them to buy that product. I realise that he may not been able to answer today, but


if that is correct, does he agree that it is thoroughly unjustifiable, and yet another example of the fact that the Scots are already over-subsidised by English taxpayers?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am delighted by that question, because all party leaders in Scotland have given blood, as I did on the occasion of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Hamilton.

Mr. George Robertson: Blue blood?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my blood is every bit as red as his.
Giving blood is a friendly and comfortable process that performs an invaluable role in saving lives throughout Scotland. I shall follow up my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), stated that the private finance initiative would not be used
to extend private sector responsibility"—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 20 May 1996; c. 3.]
to the delivery of clinical services? If he is, does he remember his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose on 17 February 1997, when he refused to rule out such involvement in clinical services? Who can we believe?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly. The scope of schemes has to be determined locally. If a different model of provision of a certain service is to be explored, that exploration must be agreed by local management and clinicians. It is not for the Scottish Office to bar that from happening. In all cases, services will still be specified, monitored and funded by the Scottish health service. Clinical care would remain free at the point of delivery and would be based on clinical need.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we are getting good value for money out of NHS managers in Scotland? Have they improved waiting lists and the throughput of patients? Has he calculated how many of those people will lose their jobs if Labour comes to power and takes money away from employing those managers to do their excellent work?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend that managers, as well as those at the sharp end of the health service, have an important role to play. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that Labour would
release £30 million for patient care by reducing the number of trust board members and cutting bureaucratic jobs.
We have pledged to increase health service funding by £148 million next year. That has not been matched by the Opposition. The number of whole-time equivalent staff in the health service in Scotland has increased by 21 per cent.—from 62,000 in 1980 to nearly 75,000 in 1995. If £30 million has to be removed from the trusts by mergers, how many hundreds of people will lose their jobs? Will they be psychologists, optometrists, doctors or nurses? Opposition Members cannot avoid the reality that they refuse to increase resources for the health service

in real terms—possibly because they have plans for an extremely expensive parliament in Scotland, the cost of which might approach £80 million.

Mr. George Robertson: May I confirm that we will match the extra money to be put into the health service next year by the Government and that, on top of that, we will make sure that the Government's obsession with administration and bureaucracy, which has characterised all that they have done in the past few years, will be reversed and that priority will be given to patient care? Is the Minister aware—and is he proud of the fact—that, since the NHS reorganisation in 1991, administration costs have spiralled by almost £190 million a year, and that the Government's obsession with bureaucracy has meant that patient care has taken second place? By reducing the number of NHS trusts, we will reverse that trend. We will move away from posh foyers, big cars and highly paid accountants and put the money that is freed into patient care, which is what the public want.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has not given any pledge to increase funding in real terms for each year of the next Parliament. No Labour Front Bencher has done that. We have given such a commitment and it has not been matched. Every year from 1980 to 1995, the number of support staff in the Scottish health service has been reduced. It has fallen from 48,300 to 39,500. That shows that we have given top priority to patient care, and those at the sharp end. In the present year we have made certain that £14 million has been diverted from administration into patient care. Over and above that, the hon. Gentleman suggests a £30 million cut for NHS trusts. I am asking how many hundreds of jobs will be put at risk. I believe that many will be, and it is fair that the electorate should be warned about that before the threat can be put into action.

Teachers (Appraisal)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the appraisal system for teachers in Scotland. [17323]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Appraisal should be the basis for assuring teaching standards in Scottish schools. The present voluntary arrangements have resulted in too few teachers being appraised. My right hon. Friend and I have therefore decided that appraisal should be put on a statutory basis. Consultation on the draft regulations has begun and will be operational by the start of the new school session.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appraisal of teachers goes hand in hand with the testing of children? Has my hon. Friend noticed, in contrast to the positive proposals in the White Paper on the future of education in Scotland, the near hysteria of Opposition Members and their teaching union allies in opposing those policies? Does he agree that that shows that old Labour is still alive and kicking in some areas and that the tragedy is that it is to the detriment of children in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. Our approach to appraisal of teaching, and testing in S1 and S2 in


secondary schools, is part of our continuing drive to push up even further standards in Scottish schools. That contrasts sharply with the attitude of Labour Members, whose answer to all this seems to be to close bad schools.

Mr. Welsh: When will the Minister respond to the 40,000 parents, children and teachers in Edinburgh and the 20,000 in Glasgow who demonstrated against the Government's education policy? Will he now appraise his mishandling of the education system? If he will not, the electorate certainly will.

Mr. Robertson: As I understand it, those people were demonstrating not against the Government's policy but against the spending decisions and expected spending decisions of local authorities. Every teacher on that march and every parent of every child in Scotland's schools should know that every local authority in Scotland has more money to spend next year on education than last year. We expect those local authorities to make education the same key priority as the Government have made it.

Sir Hector Monro: On the training of teachers, does my hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the assisted places scheme and the introduction of vouchers for nursery education are crucial for the future of Scottish education and that if the Labour party continues to object and say that those schemes will be abolished, it will continue to plummet down the polls as it did yesterday?

Mr. Robertson: Every parent in Scotland of a pre-school child should know what the Labour party intends to do this year, next year and the year after. It would snatch back the vouchers, worth £1,100, which we are issuing and allow parents to choose, for the first time, whether to send their child to a nursery in the private or local authority sector. We are empowering parents by giving them that money and if, God forbid, Labour was sitting on the Government Benches, it would snatch that money back.

Mrs. Liddell: Will the Minister acknowledge that the key to raising standards in Scottish schools is the excellent work done by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools? Will he condemn the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), who claimed that school inspectors do not have proper jobs? Is not it hypocritical of Conservative Members to attack teachers when no action is taken against Conservative Members who pollute our schoolchildren with racism, sexism and bigotry?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member who should be condemned is the hon. Lady who, two weeks ago, was briefing the press that the Government intended to privatise HMI. That was absolutely untrue. As always, the hon. Lady seeks to hector and lecture all involved in Scottish education with the attitude that granny knows best. That is why granny wants to snatch back £1,100 from the hands of parents in Scotland.

Secondary Education

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary

schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1978–79, at constant prices. [17325]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Current expenditure per secondary pupil in 1994–95 was £2,874. That is 37 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979.

Sir David Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that that impressive increase in expenditure per secondary school pupil in Scotland has been reflected in improvements in the quality of education provided to them?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are putting more money in and our standards are rising. As we made clear in our White Paper "Raising the Standard", which we published a month ago, in the next Parliament we will continue that work.

Mr. Salmond: Did not the Education Minister effectively instigate the teachers' strike in Glasgow today through a financial settlement which aims a dagger at the heart of Scottish education? The Minister spent £250,000 on a study that basically told us that expenditure on secondary education in Scotland is higher because the provision is higher. Is it Tory policy to reduce provision in Scotland to the level that pertains south of the border? If so, the chances of the Education Minister getting his old job back in teaching after the election will be extremely limited.

Mr. Robertson: Every teacher marching in Glasgow will want to know what Glasgow city council has been doing with the additional £3.5 million, compared with last year, for education that it has received for next year. They will want to know why that city council is saying that it must cut front-line education services while it has managed to find money to send councillors to a symposium on cultural policies at St. Petersburg, an international rose trials exhibition at Rome, a meeting of the International Badminton Federation in Hong Kong; and to Rostov's city days event at Rostov-on-Don. That is what Glasgow teachers should be asking of Glasgow city council.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that, given a substantial increase in real expenditure per pupil, nationalist councillors are saying that services in schools will have to be cut and certain subjects, such as music, will be charged for excessively—despite the fact that expenditure has increased?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His local authority has received almost £2 million more than last year to spend on education next year. The Scottish National party-controlled council in the constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will have £250,000 more to spend next year in comparison with last year. Teachers, parents and pupils should ask those councils what they are doing with that extra money.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the comments that the Minister and his colleagues have made about narrowing the gap between expenditure per head in England and in Scotland, and given that the secondary school pupil-teacher ratio is 16 in England compared with


12 in Scotland, what would that ratio be if he and his colleagues were in power for a further five years? When can I tell my constituents that they will get a new academy at Garioch, Oldmeldrum—for which a site has been acquired, but for which capital consent is inadequate—given that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), can get a school at Laurencekirk and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) can get a new school at Banff? The current settlement is already inadequate, so how can it possibly be cut further?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman talks about teacher-pupil ratios, but he seems to forget that, during the lifetime of these four Conservative Governments, pupil-teacher ratios at primary and secondary schools have consistently fallen. I assure him that, during the lifetime of the next four Conservative Governments, they will continue to fall.

Public Expenditure (Glasgow)

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on public expenditure in Glasgow. [17326]

Mr. Kynoch: Public expenditure per head in Scotland is about 25 per cent. higher than in England, and Glasgow benefits significantly as a result.

Mr. Marshall: The Minister totally ignores the stark reality of the crisis facing the city of Glasgow. Will he

be honest and tell us what he expects will be the cumulative effect of substantial cuts in the budgets of Scottish Homes in relation to Glasgow, of Glasgow city council, of the Glasgow development agency and of the Greater Glasgow health board? What effect will all those cuts have on the health and well-being of the citizens of Glasgow? What does he intend to do to help the city in his last few weeks as a Minister?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should be addressing some of his comments to Glasgow city council. My hon. Friend the Housing Minister just mentioned some of the prioritisation that is going on in Glasgow at present. Incidentally, I should say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who said that Laurencekirk was not getting a school, that it successfully obtained it through the challenge fund today—a fact which I thought he might welcome.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) is being totally unrealistic about the situation in Glasgow, where Glasgow city council is seeking to create the impression that an increase in spending ability is a cut. The sooner those councillors—who appear to be the sort of people who are likely to put themselves forward as prospective candidates for a tax-raising parliament in Scotland if the Labour party were ever to come to power—get their priorities right and think of the people of Glasgow first, not themselves, the better for the people of Glasgow.

Hunterston Power Station

Mr. George Robertson: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the incident at Hunterston power station.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): As the House will know, recently there was an incident at Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire.
I understand that Scottish Nuclear first identified contamination in Hunterston's carbon dioxide supply network on 20 February. The staff then investigated the problem and attributed it to a faulty non-return valve in the carbon dioxide supply. As a result of their investigations, it became apparent to Scottish Nuclear staff on 27 February that a possible route existed for contaminated carbon dioxide to move out of the site. That route involved transfer of carbon dioxide from the on-site tanks to road tankers delivering further supplies of the gas. Some similar transfer could occur from the road tankers to the main tank at the supply depot. That main tank also serves a number of food processing companies.
When Scottish Nuclear identified that possibility, it reported the problem to the transport company. It then calculated the maximum possible release of radiation and concluded that, although it was of no radiological significance, it should be reported to the regulatory bodies.
On 3 March, Scottish Nuclear informed the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which in turn told the Scottish Office that day. I myself was told at about 6 pm that day.
I was, naturally, extremely concerned, and immediately took the advice of the chief medical officer for Scotland. He advised that the information and calculations provided on the incident indicated that the risk to public health—adults and children—was negligible.
Scottish Nuclear, under the supervision of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the nuclear installations inspectorate, has checked the carbon dioxide plant at Hunterston, the road tankers and the bulk storage depot. Those tests have revealed no radioactive contamination. Furthermore, and in order to provide final reassurance to the consumer, I have instructed that a number of products using carbon dioxide provided by the same company should be checked. Those checks are currently under way. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the results of the first test, on products manufactured by Campsie Spring, show absolutely no evidence whatsoever of contamination. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the nuclear installations inspectorate have been checking the plant at Hunterston and various points in the supply chain. So far no radioactive contamination has been identified, and all the indications are that, if there has been any contamination, it has been very slight indeed.
I am—and, I am sure, the whole House will be—relieved that there appears to be no risk to public health as a result of this incident. There are, however, a number of aspects which give rise to concern—notably the delays that took place in drawing this problem to the attention of the authorities and the fact that it is possible for carbon dioxide tankers supplying the food industry also to make

deliveries to a nuclear power station. I have asked the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and nuclear installations inspectorate for a full report on the incident, which I expect to receive within a week and which I will publish. In the light of this I will consider what further action should be taken.
Meanwhile I have asked Dr. Jeffrey, the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Nuclear, for an urgent meeting to explain his company's performance; and I have asked my officials to pursue with the nuclear operators in Scotland my view that no one should be using the same vehicles and equipment to make deliveries of carbon dioxide or indeed any other supplies to nuclear installations or to other locations where there may in consequence be a risk to human health. I understand that the nuclear installations inspectorate has already set in train its own review of arrangements for provision of carbon dioxide gas to all UK nuclear power stations.
As I have said, there are a number of points that I am following up, and I will keep hon. Members informed. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and to the leaders of the other Opposition parties for their constructive response to the briefing they were given. We are all concerned to put the information in the public domain without causing any panic. It is a tribute to the media, particularly north of the border, that they handled this information in a very responsible manner.

Mr. Robertson: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement and for courteously briefing the leaders of the other two parties and me last night. These are not party matters, and giving the Opposition parties advance information was both useful and constructive in this sensitive situation.
Although serious questions need to be answered about the incident, especially about the time it took for Scottish Nuclear to notify the outside world, and about the procedures for delivering carbon dioxide to a nuclear power station, I believe that the Secretary of State was absolutely right to publish a list of the companies that had been supplied with carbon dioxide and to institute immediate sample checks of their products. Ultra-caution must be the rule when it comes to the safety of food and drink—the public deserve nothing less.
No amount of technical assessment or expert guesswork will satisfy a public increasingly concerned about food safety scares. I hope that publication of the full test results will be done as a matter of urgency, to allay public concern and satisfy public curiosity. The companies involved are very large, with a host of consumers in Scotland and beyond. They employ many Scottish people in one of Scotland's biggest industries. We owe it to everyone in those industries to find out whether there is any danger in what happened at Hunterston.
There is a most persuasive argument to the effect that the risks involved are negligible, bordering on the non-existent, but for as long as there is any doubt at all, that doubt must be dispelled.
Although the Secretary of State may already have given an assurance on the matter, I urge on him the need for a full and open inquiry into what has happened and into its implications, to enable us better to comprehend how the situation came about and how it might be prevented from happening again.
To an outsider, it seems bizarre and incomprehensible that carbon dioxide for a nuclear power station can be delivered in the same road tankers as are used to supply food and fizzy drink manufacturers in the rest of Scotland. Will the Secretary of State seek, as he implied, to persuade those involved in the trade to examine the procedures urgently and thoroughly, and to change them at the earliest opportunity? 
Will the Secretary of State also ensure that British Energy and Scottish Nuclear are told that it is unacceptable to delay informing the outside world and the public that such an incident has occurred? Although Hunterston nuclear power station and Scottish Nuclear have a first-class safety record, such delay in going public must never be allowed to happen again.
I conclude by commending the swift and open action that was taken by the chief medical officer for Scotland and the Scottish Office when the incident came to their notice. I hope that that will be the model for the future.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially for his support on the publication of the names of the companies. I know that that causes concern, and some of the companies were anxious that disclosure of the names might result in panic on the part of consumers. However, the responsible coverage of the matter and the consumers' right to that information vindicated the decision that was taken.
I am happy for the NII report to be published and I will arrange for it to be circulated to hon. Members. If any further follow-up action is required, I shall be happy to respond to representations from hon. Members.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of the procedures for the delivery of CO2, and other products.
The matter of the delay will have to be examined by the NII. I should say by way of defence that Scottish Nuclear was of the view that there was no appreciable risk to health, even if there had been a transfer of radioactive material, but I rather share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is best to put such matters in the public domain so that the public can judge. One is more likely to get responsible coverage of the situation when those whose job it is to report these matters to the public feel that every piece of information has been disclosed by those who are in a position to do so.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public will be reassured by his statement and by the steps that he proposes to take in the near future? I live near Chapelcross power station, which was commissioned 35 years ago by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and which has the highest safety standards. I am sure that the reputation of that nuclear station and others in Scotland should reassure the public that an event such as that which occurred at Hunterston should not happen and is unlikely to happen again.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree with him about the high standards in the industry. The possibility of the transfer of the material was made known as a result of the monitoring that is carried out in the industry. I am sure that everyone appreciates the importance of maintaining the highest standards. The NII exists to ensure that those standards are maintained.

Where an incident occurs, lessons will have to be learnt and will add to the security of an important industry and an important employer in Scotland.

Mr. James Wallace: May I too thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for the courtesy that he extended yesterday evening by informing me and the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the statement from the chief medical officer that the risk to health is negligible for adults and children, and the results of the first tests that the Secretary of State announced today, help to put the matter into proper perspective and show that the risk is minimal, if it exists at all? I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that when nuclear incidents occur, there is natural public concern. I therefore endorse his decision on open disclosure as the best way to allay public concern. I too share the concern of the hon. Member for Hamilton with regard to the time taken to report it. It may appear to scientists that there is nothing to worry about it, but any delay adds to public concern.
Will the Secretary of State also ask the NII and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to investigate whether there have been any similar previous incidents involving a malfunctioning return valve at any United Kingdom nuclear installations, not only recently, from which lessons should have been learnt—quite apart, obviously, from ensuring that they are learnt in future?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course that is one of the questions: could this have happened in the past? It is one of the aspects that I will certainly ensure is covered in the report by the NII. I agree with him about the timing. I should perhaps say, in case anyone is wondering what we were doing between 6 o'clock on Monday night and the issue of the statement last night, that our first priority was to establish who had obtained supplies of carbon dioxide. It took some time to do that. It was my view that it was best to disclose that at the same time as the announcement was made to prevent any panic in respect of other products that may not have been affected.

Mr. Brian Wilson: As the Secretary of State is aware, I approached him last night on this matter, having become aware of it from my constituency, and I support the action that was subsequently taken. Does he agree that the overwhelmingly primary duty of the House today is to reassure the public that there is not a health risk in any of the products that potentially could have been affected? That is an important message. Having said that, the inquiries are axiomatic and essential; we must have inquiries.
The two areas on which the Secretary of State has focused are absolutely right: first, the use of a tanker that is not dedicated to the nuclear industry and, secondly, the whole question of timing. On that latter question, to be fair to the management at Hunterston and Scottish Nuclear, my understanding is that, as soon as they became aware, through logging the incident and consulting the nuclear installations inspectorate, that there was a reportable level of contamination, they reported it. The inquiry will doubtless examine that.
Before privatisation, Scottish Nuclear had established an excellent record for openness and for communicating with the public on all matters of potential concern. The crucial general principle that must be drawn out of this incident is that, in the private sector, that same tradition and practice of openness must be continued and there must at all points be a rigid, regulatory regime so that incidents, no matter how tiny and, as in this case, how unthreatening to public health, are investigated independently and promptly, with the maximum amount of information being made public as soon as possible.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and this may be the first and last recorded occasion on which I can congratulate him on using his considerable communication skills to put across an important message, as he did on BBC Radio Scotland this morning, when he emphasised the very minor nature of the incident. I agree with him about the timing. I do not want to prejudge the inquiry by the NII, but the papers that I have seen indicate that, when the incident was first discovered, it was logged, as it was required to be, as an event—an event being something of very little significance. It was only on Friday, I believe, after the Health and Safety Executive had been consulted, that it was raised to the status of an incident, which requires reporting to the regulatory authorities; the hon. Gentleman is right to mention that.
I do not wish to anticipate the NII report, but I have every confidence that the management of Scottish Nuclear acted in the best interests of safety, and at no time was there any suggestion that this incident involved any threat to public health. None the less, we are right to take it seriously, to follow it right through the supply chain and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps to alter practices in the light of this experience, which has certainly given us something of a fright.

Mr. Phil Gallie: May I commend my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he has acted on this? It is breathtaking that, since last night, so much appears to have been done. Again, the emphasis on the fact that this incident does not threaten health is very important, but in any such incident there are lessons to be learnt. I wonder—being wise after the event, and thinking about the supply of CO2 from central containers—whether not only the nuclear industry but other industries, such as the food industry, should consider separate tankers?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend has much more knowledge and experience of power stations than I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I meant power in the sense of generation of electricity. My hon. Friend has made an important point, and I will ensure that it is considered by the regulatory authorities.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the two most important questions that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office will ask Dr. Jeffrey?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether they are in order of importance, but the order in which they come into my brain—having been challenged by the hon. Gentleman—is, first, to ask about the experience leading up to the possible leakage, and whether a leakage could have

happened in the past. Secondly, I will want to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on timing and the importance of quick disclosure in matters of concern, and to ensure that those practices—which are required by regulations—are maintained.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on how the matter has been dealt with. The way in which it has been treated in the press justifies the speed with which it has been handled.
Hon. Members have already asked about delays in notification, and undoubtedly the Secretary of State will wish assiduously to pursue that matter himself. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members are concerned to know the precise timing of events, and why, at minimum, there appears to have been a four-day gap between ascertaining that there was a leak and passing on that information.
I should also express my amazement, and the amazement of the vast majority of people in Scotland, that the practice of using the same tanker to deliver CO, both to a nuclear reactor and to the domestic drinks industry appears to have been regarded as perfectly normal. Is the Secretary of State aware whether that is also the practice at Torness, which is a similar reactor? Even if there had been no incident, I suspect that the practice, if it had become well known, would have been regarded as unacceptable. We will be expecting an early assurance that the practice will cease.
Does the Secretary of State have—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must put her points much more briskly.

Ms Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State have a time scale in mind for the inquiries?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that people will want to have a speedy response and, as I said, I hope to have that response within a week. The hon. Lady has made some points which other hon. Members have touched on and with which I agree. I share her amazement that vehicles can be used for that purpose. All that I can say to the hon. Member for Hamilton is that—in the weeks that lie ahead, as we enter a general election campaign—he might like to reflect on the fact that one thing about being the Secretary of State for Scotland is that no day is the same, and every day brings its new challenges. I was told about the matter on the telephone on the way down from Inverness. It is quite extraordinary how many things can go wrong—things which people could not have anticipated. What is important is that those matters are dealt with. On the specific point on Torness, I will ensure that it is addressed in the report that the House will receive in due course.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I thank the Secretary of State for his swift action in testing products, and particularly for his reassurance on Campsie Spring water which, as he knows, is bottled in Lennoxtown in my constituency. I am sure that his reassurance will be a great relief to the company and to all those involved. Will he try to ensure that the


information that Campsie Spring water is safe is made readily available to as many outlets as possible and as soon as possible?

Mr. Forsyth: By announcing something in the House, one announces it to the world, but we shall certainly make sure that the information is circulated. I am extremely grateful to Campsie Spring and the other companies for the responsible way in which they have co-operated with Scottish Office officials in the public interest. The situation must have been terrifying for them, because their products were put in doubt.

Mr. Adam Ingram: Does the Secretary of State agree that the nuclear industry is an important part of the Scottish economy, with the highest safety standards? It is accepted that there may be a need to change operating procedures at nuclear stations. Will the Secretary of State continue to ensure that the incident is not used to undermine the future of the nuclear industry in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I cannot control what people say and how they use issues to advance particular causes, however misguided. I agree that the nuclear industry is important in Scotland and that it has the highest standards. I also believe that, by the nature of the industry, it is not possible for us to be anything other than always on our guard for the possibilities of leakage or other incidents. The management of British Energy is committed to maintaining the highest standards. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that some people, for their own interests, will no doubt wish to exploit such incidents. In this case, there is no cause for concern about public safety.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) implied that there might be something wrong at Torness. Will the

Secretary of State take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that there is no suggestion of anything wrong at Torness?

Mr. Forsyth: As far as I am aware, there is no cause for concern about Torness. I think that the hon. Lady said that we should check the procedures for the delivery of carbon dioxide and other materials at Torness, in line with other nuclear power stations. As I said earlier, that is being done.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There have not been many statements or private notice questions on almost any subject in recent months. Does not the Secretary of State's presence at the Dispatch Box show that we are dealing with a serious matter? We should always remember that we are dealing with an industry that could be very unsafe. Will he also bear it in mind that his words today show clearly that, in the nuclear power industry, there is only a hair's breadth between getting away with it and having an incident of a major character?

Mr. Ingram: Like in the pits.

Mr. Skinner: It is not quite the same as the pits. My hon. Friend is not concerned about all those miners who were thrown out of work by the Government.
There is another point of view. All hon. Members seem to have accepted the Secretary of State's words as a reassurance. I had better tell him—somebody has to be clear about this—that so dangerous is the industry that I would not take his words at face value on this subject or any other. He would not recognise the truth if it was sprayed on his eyeballs.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is exactly the kind of individual whom the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) was concerned about. I am sorry that he has chosen to put forward that point of view. I am not asking him to accept assurances from me. I have told the House that the independent nuclear installations inspectorate will produce a report, which I shall circulate. If the hon. Gentleman still has concerns, I shall be happy to follow them up.

Points of Order

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to correct an answer that I gave yesterday in response to a question from the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston).
Referring to Bristol councillors' allowances, I said:
They are raising their own pay by up to 66 per cent."—[Official Report, 4 March 1997; Vol. 291, c. 702.]
I should have used the past tense.
According to a reply to a question to the chairman of Bristol city council's policy and finance committee, the increase in special responsibility allowances for 1995–96 was from £19,200 to £30,600. That is a 59.4 per cent. increase. A press report on that increase points out that annual allowances for the five chairmen increased from £1,200 to £2,000, which is a 66.67 per cent. increase.
I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was certainly not my intention to mislead the House.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the controversy surrounding the remarks of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), which maligned women in general but were particularly insulting to female Members of Parliament. Many hon. Members believe that his behaviour has brought the House into disrepute. Is there a relevant or appropriate Committee to which the matter may be referred in order to resolve it?

Madam Speaker: No. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, there is no appropriate Committee of the House to which the matter could be referred. As Speaker, I have no responsibility or authority regarding speeches or comments made outside the House. My task is to keep my ears open for comments made in the House—and I think that I have enough to do in that regard without concerning myself with remarks made outside it.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns the rights of constituents to approach Members of Parliament. Some constituents who are concerned about the closure of the Rotherham benefits agency came to my surgery on Saturday, and I shall take up their case with the relevant Minister. However, I was astonished when they gave me a top-level circular that was issued to all Benefits Agency staff threatening them with disciplinary action or dismissal if they contacted Members of Parliament about the matter. I believe that the Benefits Agency director, Peter Mathison, should be made to come to the Bar of the House on his knees to apologise for that threat to the right of British citizens to contact their Members of Parliament. I seek your ruling, Madam Speaker, so that no constituents of mine or of any other hon. Member need fear contacting their Members of Parliament about any issue.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a little notice of the matter. Without necessarily commenting on a particular case, I confirm that I am strongly of the view that constituents should not be prevented by their employer or anyone else in a similar

position from taking matters of public or personal concern to their Member of Parliament. The House and all its Members are here to represent the people, and we cannot do that properly if people's grievances and complaints are stifled.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), Madam Speaker, will time be made available for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House about the disreputable remarks of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans)?

Madam Speaker: If a Minister wishes to make a statement, I have no alternative but to hear it.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is not about the racist and sexist clown whose utterances have disgraced this House. Madam Speaker, like your predecessors, you have said on many occasions that statements about policy should be made first in the House. I draw your attention to the fact that today both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security made very important statements about the future of the state earnings-related pension scheme that will affect millions of people in this country. Clearly no statement will be made about the matter in the House today, although the announcement was made publicly and has been reported on radio and television. Does that not demonstrate a contempt for the House of Commons? Madam Speaker, although you are not responsible for whether statements are made, I ask you to let it be known not only to Government Members but to the whole House that statements on important matters of policy such as this—although the measure will not be implemented because the Government will not be re-elected—should be made to the House of Commons first rather than to the media or the general public.

Madam Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I repeat that, when there is to be major change of policy, a statement should be made first to the House. I noted the comments that were made this morning, and I made it my business to find out when questions could be asked about the matter. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that he will be able to put down such questions to Social Security Ministers on 11 March.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that many hon. Members—particularly those on Opposition Benches—feel particularly outraged that today's briefing came from Tory central office and that the announcement was made from Downing street. The Government are proposing an epoch-making change in pensions policy that will affect millions of people. It is an abuse of Parliament if we cannot have a statement in the House about such an important matter, particularly during an election period. If there is to be a string of such announcements in the run-up to the election, I suggest that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. If he wants to announce Tory party policies, let him do so from


central office. He should not be allowed to abuse the dignity of his office by refusing to come to the House to answer questions.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members could take the opportunity at business questions tomorrow to press for a statement or a debate next week on those matters.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on whether it is normal practice, in the weeks before a general election, for parties to give their thoughts and ideas on what they may do after the election? That becomes policy only after the election.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made some wise comments.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You suggested that questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security could be tabled for 11 March. However, that gives only five sitting days, and 10 sitting days are required to enable the Secretary of State to answer oral questions in the House on that matter.

Madam Speaker: Questions should be tabled on 11 March for answer on 25 March.

Civil Actions (Limit on Proceedings)

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to contain civil actions for compensation.
It used to be said that Englishmen, and indeed women, had stiff upper lips and a calm approach to life's vicissitudes. Misfortune was met with a stoic resolve, and with comments such as "chin up". That has changed, perhaps for the better in some ways. Sadly, British society has become a great deal more litigious in respect of any misfortune, and we seem, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, to be living with a "compensation culture". No longer does the concept of an act of God, an accident or bad luck feature in most people's calculations. Someone else must be to blame for misfortune, and that someone should pay compensation. We seem to be following the United States of America. I think that the House will agree that that is not a healthy development in our society.
I recall the case of a man who slipped on the cobb in Lyme Regis in 1988. One would suppose that anyone walking beside the sea would have a duty of care, and would realise that sea water makes the stones slippery. Nevertheless, the incident was thought worthy of a court case, and he was initially awarded £95,000 compensation, because the council had not put up a sign saying that wet stones are slippery.
Similar cases are becoming depressingly common. Each day's newspapers show someone at an industrial tribunal or in court demanding compensation. A female teacher at a Roman Catholic school, which tries to uphold the tenets of that faith, claimed that she had been constructively dismissed. Her only fault was to have had three children by different fathers, one of whom was a former pupil half her age. Some may say that that does not set a good example to other children, but she definitely wants compensation.
One would hope that most educated people know that west Africa used to be called the white man's grave, because of the disease and fever prevalent there. The trainee solicitor who went to Ghana and contracted dysentery did not, and she of course wants compensation. She wants two thirds of a million pounds, because her company must have been at fault as it did not warn her that she should be careful about what she ate.
Schoolchildren intend to sue their schools because they did not get good enough grades at examinations. Three former students are suing their university because they did not get good enough degrees. There is the extraordinary case of a prisoner who was awarded £100 because he thought that the haircut he was given in prison was too short. What complete nonsense. Some inmates in Strangeways were each given a settlement of £5,000 because they were present during a riot. The convicted killer, Christopher Clunis, was awarded legal aid—taxpayers' money—and will spend at least£100,000 of it suing Camden and Islington health authority. He and his lawyers will benefit, but no one else will, and justice certainly will not.
Women joined the armed forces on the understanding that they would have to leave if they became pregnant. After they had left, they quickly discovered that that could


be a nice little earner, and as a result taxpayers paid out £57 million. Similarly, members of the emergency services such as the police and the fire service must expect to see ghastly sights—I certainly did when I was a soldier. If those sights affect them, of course they should be given medical help, but I do not believe that they should be given public money as compensation for going about their duty.
Finally, some Leicester City fans near my constituency are suing the Football Association for distress over the disputed penalty against Chelsea. I assume that that is a joke, but they have served a writ.
I do not suggest that those who suffer real injury or financial loss should not be compensated if somebody has been negligent. However, I believe that we are going down the road of America, where it is said that doctors will not stop to attend injured people in the street for fear that they may be sued if they make a mistake and that their insurance may not cover them. That cannot be good for society.
The generations of my parents and grandparents suffered huge deprivation and the great traumatic stress of two world wars. They did not spend their time whingeing, but got on with their lives and were determined to improve the world. One might contrast that with a soldier who took part in the campaign in the Falklands for about a month. Eight years later, after a heavy drinking session he took out a pistol in his accommodation, fired it at a television set and threatened his comrades. That soldier received £100,000 because, of course, he had post-traumatic stress disorder. That certainly should have been spotted before he was promoted twice in the preceding eight years. Apparently, we are now told by the European Court of Human Rights that he should have been sent to bed and never prosecuted by a court martial. Not many soldiers would agree.
The money does not grow on trees and, in many cases, it does not even come from the private sector. It comes from the public purse—the pockets of taxpayers. Every hon. Member can think of better things on which it should be spent. If it comes from private sources, it will probably come from insurance companies and, therefore, is reflected in the higher premiums paid by all, including those least able to pay, such as many pensioners.
My Bill proposes that we should turn the tide of this ludicrous litigation. I propose that there should be a test of common sense and that an arbitrator or ombudsman should be appointed to deal with personal injuries and

personal litigation of this kind. That arbitrator would give an opinion based on sensible and pragmatic guidelines. It would then be up to any plaintiff to refuse to accept that opinion, but if a plaintiff did go to court, there would be no legal aid and there would be a presumption that should the plaintiff lose, he or she would be liable for all costs.
The Bill would lay down pragmatic guidelines for the judiciary based on common sense, and on proven injury or financial loss to the plaintiff. There would not be binding regulations, but guidelines which might change the culture of litigation.
Unlike many hon. Members I am not a lawyer, but I can see that personal litigation has become a lawyer's bonanza. I am distressed that the Law Society sees fit to set up an accident line to encourage those who may have cut a finger to call to see if there is anything in it for them. There is obviously something in it for the lawyers. There is an association of personal injury lawyers which wrote to me recently—and, I suspect, to all other Members of Parliament—which seems to exist to encourage people to complain for whatever reason in the hope of getting compensation.
The no win, no fee system is particularly dangerous since the pursuit of real justice must be a long way down the list of priorities of any lawyer involved. I would rather see taxpayers' money go to those who deserve compensation for some real injury, not to lawyers touting for business.
Two years ago this month I introduced another ten-minute Bill, the Eradication of Mink Bill. I said then that it could be called a Bill for the conservation of water voles. I was gratified on Monday and yesterday to see the coverage given to David Bellamy and others who are publicising the plight of the water vole. I am delighted at the high profile that their campaign is now receiving.
This Bill may not become law in this Parliament. Nevertheless, in another two years, or at some time in the next Parliament, I hope that measures will be enacted so that only genuine personal injury or financial loss will lead to the pursuit of compensation and that our litigious compensation culture may thereby be limited.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan.

CIVIL ACTIONS (LIMIT ON PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to contain civil actions for compensation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 May, and to be printed [Bill 129]

Prevention of Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
I wish to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC for carrying out the annual review of the legislation. His report informs our debate today. His clear conclusion, following wide consultation, and an entirely independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1996, is that the Act remains necessary, and that it should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. The Government share his view, and accept his recommendation.
It is now 23 years since the prevention of terrorism legislation was first enacted. The present Act was passed in 1989, and, like its predecessors, it was intended to be a temporary measure made in response to an exceptional threat. Very regrettably, the threat we face from terrorism remains as great today. Within our midst, a callous, murderous minority remains determined to use violence to achieve its ends.
Last year, the House renewed the Act under the dark shadow of the bombing of South Quay, the deaths of two people caught in the blast, and the formal ending of the IRA's ceasefire. This year, we must consider the need for its provisions against the background of a continuing campaign by the Provisional IRA in Great Britain, and a return to violence in Northern Ireland. The past 12 months reveal an all too familiar legacy of the destruction of lives, families, homes, livelihoods and communities.
Following the South Quay bomb, there were further attacks on the mainland, and another death. Those culminated in the bombing of Manchester city centre on Saturday 15 June. More than 200 people were injured in that outrage. I saw the destruction for myself a few days later. It was a miracle that no one was killed, and a testament to the skills of all those who worked so quickly to move more than 80,000 people to safety.
In Northern Ireland, the IRA stepped up its targeting, and readied its resources for a full return to violence in the Province. That came, with tragic consequences, on 7 October 1996. Two car bombs were detonated, one shortly after the other, and without warning, inside Thiepval barracks in Lisburn. Thirty-eight people were injured and, as the House knows, Warrant Officer James Bradwell later died of his injuries. Hon. Members will remember that the second bomb had been placed outside the medical centre. It was deliberately timed to catch those trying to help those wounded in the first explosion. Such acts speak volumes about the kind of people with whom we have to contend.
That attack has been followed by numerous others, many of which have been either abandoned or successfully disrupted by the security forces. However, only last month, on 12 February, Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was murdered by the IRA while checking a car at a vehicle checkpoint in Bessbrook. Stephen's parents hope that their son's tragic death will inspire renewed efforts on all sides to find a peaceful solution. I urge the IRA to listen to them, and to abandon

violence for good. I urge the loyalists to listen to them, lest they fall into the trap of retaliation set for them by the IRA.

Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside any controversy about the effectiveness of the legislation, is the Home Secretary aware that, on Monday in Dublin, the Taoiseach went out of his way to condemn the foul and brutal murder of the soldier whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned—a view entirely endorsed by all the Irish Deputies, as well as by all hon. Members of this House who were present? In reply to questions, the Taoiseach went on to say that the Irish authorities will continue to co-operate as closely as possible with the British in every way in dealing with terrorism.

Mr. Howard: Yes, of course I welcome those words by the Taoiseach, and the co-operation that we receive from the security authorities in the Republic.

Mr. David Wilshire: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in the same speech, the Taoiseach said that he equated what happened at Drumcree with such an atrocity? He said that he felt that Drumcree was as bad as the Canary Wharf bomb. Although my right hon. and learned Friend may find what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said helpful, does he not agree that the sort of comment that I have described is outrageous?

Mr. Howard: I have not seen that part of the speech, and I prefer not to comment without having read it for myself. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: rose—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Howard: I hope that we are not about to turn the debate into a textual analysis of a speech made in another Parliament by the Head of another Government. We are here to renew the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way on that point. I intend to proceed with the matter before the House.
I can assure the House that the IRA's atrocities have not held up, and will not hold up, the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The talks process remains the only democratic alternative to the futility of further violence.
The IRA and its supporters think that terrorism will achieve results that cannot be secured through negotiation and the ballot box. They could not be more wrong. The multi-party talks process began on 10 June—without Sinn Fein—and continues today. It will continue in the next Parliament. Delegates representing the opinions of the vast majority in Northern Ireland are engaged in a real effort to achieve an acceptable political settlement and a lasting peace. For that reason, we still wish to see Sinn Fein join the talks, but that is entirely in its hands.
The IRA knows what it must do: it must deliver an unequivocal ceasefire, and it must stop its paramilitary activities. It must abandon violence for good.
The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the mainland since the appalling attack—

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Home Secretary see the irony in what he has just said? Originally it was the demand for decommissioning that stopped the progress on peace that we wanted, whereas now the Government appear to have abandoned that. Do they not realise the error of their ways in terms of what they previously demanded?

Mr. Howard: There has been no change whatever in the Government's position. I have just said that, if Sinn Fein is to enter the talks, the IRA must abandon violence for good. In the face of that statement, the hon. Gentleman called upon the Government to see the error of their ways. Was he suggesting that to demand of the IRA that it abandon violence for good is an error? If not, let him stand up again and explain himself.

Mr. Connarty: That is an appalling misinterpretation. The error of the Government's ways that I was pointing out was the fact that it was the demand for decommissioning that stopped the progress. I hope that the Home Secretary accepts that. The Government have now moved their position, and I welcome that, but does the Home Secretary not accept that it was such errors in the past that led us to where we are now?

Mr. Howard: No, I do not accept that for one moment. If any body is to abandon violence for good, it can have no objection to decommissioning—a fairly obvious point, which seems to have entirely escaped the hon. Gentleman, and, I fear, many of his hon. Friends.
The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on the mainland since the appalling attack on Manchester is no thanks to the IRA. Credit must in large part go to the vigilance of the police and the Security Service. They have had several significant successes in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the past year.
For example, the police and security services believe that, in July last year, with the discovery and seizure of a large number of devices in London, they foiled a serious and imminent terrorist attack on the mainland. Another joint operation led to the seizure in September of a substantial amount of explosives, weapons and other terrorist equipment in London. The haul included more than 6 tonnes of home-made explosive—enough for several bombs the size of the one that exploded in Manchester.
Those achievements, and many others in Northern Ireland, did not come easily. They were hard won by the determination, skill and vigilance of police officers and of the Security Service. We owe them a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on the congratulations of all hon. Members to the members of the Security Service, who never get any real thanks for the clandestine work that they undertake?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that all law enforcement agencies are united on the need to allow telephone intercept transcript evidence in criminal trials in the United Kingdom? Is it not a curiosity, indeed an anachronism, that telephone intercept evidence recorded in the United States can be used in criminal trials here, but conversations recorded under his warrant in the United Kingdom cannot? Has he had any representations on the topic from the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise, the Security Service or the police?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his intervention; the second part raises difficult questions that were also considered by Lord Lloyd in his report on what we might need by way of anti-terrorist provisions in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That is still under consideration. If I may say so, the matter is not quite as simple and straightforward as my hon. Friend's intervention might lead one to suppose.
We must not forget another key factor in the successes of the police and the Security Service: the powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The Act gives the police the powers they need to prevent whenever possible, and otherwise to investigate, terrorist attacks, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. I am convinced that those powers are still necessary; that is why I ask the House to renew them.
As Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to arrest and to extend detention under the Act are vital weapons in the fight against terrorism. In Great Britain in 1996, there were 84 detentions under the Act; of the 23 suspects who were held for more than the initial 48-hour period, 13 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist-related offences.
In Northern Ireland, 569 people were detained under the Act, 48 of whom were held for more than the initial 48-hour period; of those, 20 were subsequently charged with serious terrorist-related offences; and 135 other detainees were charged with other offences.
In 1996, the powers of detention under the Act were used on two occasions in respect of suspected international terrorist activity, although neither detainee was subsequently charged. I remain convinced that the powers are needed in relation both to international terrorism and to terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The House will recall that two people, both of whom were originally arrested under the Act in 1995, were convicted last December of the car bombing in London of the Israeli Embassy and of a Jewish charity in 1994; each is now serving a 20-year sentence. An Algerian national, who was also originally arrested under the Act in 1995, remains in custody here, subject to an application by the French authorities to extradite him in connection with the bombing campaign in France in 1995.
Many Opposition Members believe that extensions of detention should be granted by judges rather than by a Secretary of State. Mr. Rowe re-examined the issue in his report. Drawing on his experience of the way in which the English and Welsh courts deal with public interest immunity hearings, he concludes that judicial involvement might be possible in principle in England and Wales, but not in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Rowe thinks that it would be inappropriate for there to be different systems for granting extensions of detention in different parts of the United Kingdom, and concludes that judicial involvement in the process should not be introduced anywhere in the United Kingdom at the present time.
The Government do not believe that it would be right to involve the judiciary in the extension of the detention process. That is because decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours are often made on the basis of sensitive information that cannot be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without compromising the source of the intelligence. If such information were revealed, it might well give rise to a serious risk to persons assisting the police, or lead to the loss of valuable intelligence.
Any new procedure that allowed a court to make what amounts to an executive decision on information not presented to the detainee or his legal adviser, and without the giving of reasons or the possibility of an appeal, would represent a radical departure from the principles that govern judicial proceedings in an adversarial system. It would create a real risk of undermining judicial independence, as the judiciary would be perceived as part of the investigation and prosecution process.

Mr. McNamara: The Home Secretary seems to be rejecting one of Lord Lloyd's recommendations. Will he tell us what other recommendations he is rejecting?

Mr. Howard: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He follows these matters closely, and we have put it on record that, as Lord Lloyd was invited to review the position on the assumption that there was a lasting peace in Northern Ireland and as—most regrettably—that has not yet come to pass, we have not formed a view on Lord Lloyd's recommendations. We said as much in answer to a parliamentary question. It is not a question of our having rejected Lord Lloyd's recommendations; we have not reached a view on them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary not think that his defence of the PTA system, under which he as Home Secretary can grant an extension of a detention order, is very perverse? He seems to be defending a judicial procedure that can keep people in custody for up to seven days without access to the courts. Does he not think that he should take account of the international condemnation of that system? After all, it is a denial of the liberty of the individuals involved.

Mr. Howard: I entirely reject every word of that intervention. Far from there being international condemnation, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware, the question of derogation from the European convention of human rights on that specific issue has been tested before the court, and the court did not uphold the challenge that was made in the Brannigan case.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to delay the Home Secretary's speech, but may I pursue the point? I accept what he said about the premise on which Lord Lloyd made his recommendations, but Lord Lloyd also made specific recommendations for a raft of what he would regard as emergency powers after we have attained a particular status. That is what we were talking about.
Are the Government saying that, because the premise has not been accepted, they do not accept any of Lord Lloyd's recommendations; or is the Home Secretary merely saying that at present they are not accepting that particular recommendation because they have not reached a view on Lord Lloyd's recommendations, which were made on a premise that the Home Secretary does not accept in any event?

Mr. Howard: We have made our position very clear. I shall say something about it in a moment. We accept some of Lord Lloyd's recommendations relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction; as for the generality of his recommendations, which were made on the assumption that there was a lasting peace in Northern Ireland and which indicate the legislative framework that he thinks would be appropriate in those circumstances, we have said that, as that assumption has not yet been fulfilled, we see no need to state our attitude to those recommendations at this stage. We shall continue to keep them under review. If and when—I hope that it will happen very soon—the assumption that Lord Lloyd was asked to make comes about, we will consider what decisions to make in the light of the circumstances at the time. We have made that clear.
The Act contains other provisions that play a vital part in disrupting and combating terrorism. Again, as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to stop, examine, and search those coming into, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland form a vital part of our defences. Of great importance, too, are the powers of the police to investigate terrorist finances and to obtain production and explanation orders in relation to funds and other material found.
As the House knows, we added to the powers available to the police under the PTA last April. We gave the police additional powers to stop and search individuals for articles of use in carrying out terrorist acts; to seal off the streets to prevent or investigate a terrorist attack; and to search non-residential property and unaccompanied freight at ports. Those additional powers are already proving their worth, as Mr. Rowe's report makes clear.
The police have told me of the use they have made in recent investigations of the power to search, under warrant, non-residential premises without having to specify the one in which they believe the terrorist material for which they are looking may be found. The additional powers to stop and search have also had an impact: the police believe that they have had a significant deterrent effect, and have disrupted the ability of terrorists to move themselves and their equipment around at will. In those circumstances, it is quite extraordinary that 21 Labour Members saw fit to vote against the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 on Second Reading.
Perhaps the most sensitive power in the Act, and one which the Opposition have long opposed, is that of exclusion. I know that some hon. Members, while wholly supportive of other parts of the legislation, are concerned about denying British citizens access to part of their country. As one who remains proud to call himself a Unionist, I understand and sympathise with their concerns. However, when faced with people who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends, we have to accept exceptional measures—measures that in normal circumstances we would not be prepared even to contemplate.
I have no doubt of the value of these powers. Exclusion orders disrupt and deter those bent on carrying out terrorist attacks, and deprive the terrorist organisations to which they belong of some of their most experienced operators. That is also Mr. Rowe's clear conclusion. If the power can help us to combat the terrorist menace, we must keep it. It would be wholly irresponsible to discard it simply because it results in the restriction of the movements of certain individuals.
Some suggest that the process for making exclusion orders is arbitrary and unfair. Mr. Rowe's report makes it clear that it is not. He has looked at all files relating to the cases that were dealt with in 1996, and I am pleased to note that he found that all those involved in making the orders carried out their task carefully and fairly. The powers are used sparingly, not least in recognition of their exceptional nature. There are currently 23 exclusion orders in force. That is the lowest total ever. However, I do not rule out the possibility that further orders will be made. Each case will, as now, be considered very carefully on its merits.
There are those who argue that, as the number excluded is now relatively small, it would make little difference if all the orders were revoked. I do not accept that. We believe that they are needed, and that they are effective. The alternative—mounting surveillance operations on all those currently excluded—would have substantial resource implications. It is simply not realistic, particularly when the police and the Security Service are fully engaged in preventing further attacks and investigating those that have already taken place.
I have explained why we need to renew the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, but I should like to turn briefly to the future. In December 1995, the Government asked Lord Lloyd of Berwick to consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. His report was published in October 1996. Very regrettably, the conditions that he was asked to anticipate do not exist at present. That is why the Government believe, as I announced on 20 February, that it is too early to reach any firm conclusions on the more fundamental legislative changes that Lord Lloyd proposed. Our hope is that there will soon be an end to the violence, and that we shall then be able to look again at the possibility of providing a new legislative framework for combating terrorism.
However, I am determined that the police should have all the powers they need to combat effectively the current threat from terrorism. That is why I intend to introduce proposals in due course to strengthen the existing controls on terrorist finances. Those proposals will build on Lord Lloyd's very helpful ideas.
One area that Lord Lloyd looked at particularly closely was legislation to deal with the activities of United Kingdom supporters of foreign terrorism. He concluded:
The most significant additional measure which the Government can take is to amend the law of conspiracy so as to facilitate the prosecution of those who conspire here to commit terrorist acts abroad. It may take a prosecution or two before the measure takes full effect but it should then serve as a demonstration, both to those involved and to the international community, of the Government's determination to make the UK as difficult and uncomfortable a place as possible for supporters of terrorism overseas".

That is why I attach great importance to the private Member's Bill on conspiracy and incitement introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
I have to say that the behaviour of the Labour party towards the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill has been disgraceful. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) previously promised the Opposition's support for the Bill. On 11 February, he said:
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on the fact that his Bill has gained the support of the Government and the Opposition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 February 1997; c. 16.]
Yet Labour Members blocked its Report proceedings on two separate occasions. Last Friday was the last chance for it to become law this Session. When it came to the crunch, Labour Front Benchers who were present last Friday, including the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), sat on their hands, knowing that their hon. Friends' actions would torpedo the Bill. They preferred playing party games to supporting effective action against the threat from international terrorism.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Home Secretary also tell the House that, despite his statement that the Bill is a matter of importance, the Conservative party could not muster 40 people so that the Bill could proceed?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had wanted that Bill to proceed to the statute book in accordance with what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, he could have gone into the Division Lobby last Friday and helped to get the numbers up to the 40 that was required. The hon. Gentleman sat on his hands, in full knowledge of the consequences of his action.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Government to incite Front Benchers—his own and others—to interfere in private Members' legislation? Some of us think that the Labour Front-Bench team behaved properly by being neutral on the matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Lady's point is a matter of debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Howard: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Garscadden arrive in the Chamber at this point. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) may wish that her party was neutral. That is fine, but the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman said that the Bill had the support of that party. If it did, the least that could have happened last Friday was that the right hon. Member for Garscadden and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North could have gone into the Division Lobby to help bring the numbers up to the quota that was required to make progress on the Bill.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Why is it that the party which claims to be the Government of Britain


cannot get 20 of its own Members of Parliament out of bed in time to come to the House to help carry legislation that the Government want?

Mr. Howard: If we are assured that a private Member's Bill has the support of the Opposition, we are entitled to expect that they will support it. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would say that we ought to know better by now than to rely on assurances from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman that the party supports a Bill. In fact, the Bill was torpedoed by hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given that issue a fair run. We must return to what is immediately before us.

Mr. Howard: I am happy to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As for the attitude of the Opposition to the prevention of terrorism Act—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Such a measure should not be left to a private Member's Bill. May I ask him a question concerning the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the scheme of things? On Scottish police operations, will he confirm that such matters rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland and not with himself?

Mr. Howard: I am not entirely clear to what matters the hon. Gentleman is referring. He referred to "such matters", but I am not entirely clear what he means. The responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are well known.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the legislation we are discussing will not cover Algerian or Sikh separatists who are plotting terrorist activities in their own countries from this country? Will he confirm that, on the basis of what happened on Friday, they will have a free run for another year?

Mr. Howard: Broadly speaking, my hon. Friend is correct. If the activities of those to whom my hon. Friend referred specifically relate to plotting to carry out murder, and if that can be established, they are covered by the law. If they are plotting to commit acts of terrorism generally, my hon. Friend's analysis is entirely correct.
Every year from 1983 to 1995 the Labour party opposed the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. The right hon Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the leader of the Labour party, continued that stance when he became Opposition spokesman on home affairs. Then, last year, there was an abrupt change. While mortars were raining down on Heathrow in 1994, the Labour party voted against the Act; last year, in the aftermath of South Quay, the Opposition abstained.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave a curious reason for the change of policy. He said:
we do not want any message going out to them"—
the IRA—
that they could glean any idea from our position that there could be any kind of excuse for the renewal of bombing by them".
The logic of the hon Gentleman's argument is that, for the previous 15 years, Labour had indeed been giving the bombers an excuse. The logic of his argument is that that is exactly what the Labour party was doing when his leader had responsibility for shadowing home affairs. But last year the Opposition abstained. On that most fundamental measure for the protection of the people of this country, they had no view. Could anything more clearly demonstrate the fact that they are wholly unfit to govern?

Mr. Mallon: The implication of the Secretary of State's remarks is that anyone who votes against the legislation is somehow providing succour, help or assistance to the IRA. As someone who lives in south Armagh; who has fought against violence from the Provisional IRA for the past 27 years—not from the comfort of a debating chamber but out on the roads and streets of south Armagh—and will continue to do so; and who will vote against this legislation, may I ask: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I am giving any help, succour or assistance to the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Howard: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's record. The implication which I drew did not flow from my words, but flowed directly from the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn which I quoted. However, I will go further and say the following to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), while acknowledging his record. It is not good enough for him or for the Labour party to claim allegiance to the objective of defeating the IRA—to the end of defeating the IRA—if they are not prepared to support in the Division Lobbies of the House the means by which that objective can be attained. The two cannot be separated and divorced in the way I believe that the hon. Gentleman would seek to do; they go together.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again, because he has put his finger on the point that I hope to make, and which I have been making for the past 11 years in our annual debates. The ways and the means of doing it need not necessarily be those represented by the legislation that we are discussing. The empirical evidence is that the approach is not the right one, because for 27 years it has failed. Even at this late stage, I ask the Secretary of State, is it not time for the present Government to consider different ways and means? As I say to the IRA, one cannot separate the means from the objectives. If the methods are wrong, they hinder progress towards the objective.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but, in discharging the responsibilities I have for the protection of the people of this country, I am more inclined to take advice on the necessity for these powers from the police, the Security Service and the independent reviewer who has been appointed to inquire into these matters than I am from the hon. Gentleman.
I have explained why the Government believe that it is essential that the prevention of terrorism Act should be renewed, in its entirety, for a further 12 months. We still face an exceptional threat from terrorism. The spate of recent attacks in Northern Ireland speaks for itself. No one in the House today should be under any illusion that the absence of an attack on the mainland since the Manchester bombing means that the threat here has disappeared. There is no complacency in the Government or in the security forces. There should certainly be no complacency among hon. Members.
The Act gives the police the powers they need to fight terrorism. It is our duty to ensure that those powers remain available to them—and for as long as they are needed. The Government are committed to keeping them. I urge Opposition Members to vote with us to renew the Act. A united House tonight will send the clearest possible message to the terrorists that their actions cannot, and will not, be tolerated; that they cannot win; that the bomb and the bullet will never triumph over the wishes of the vast majority who want peace and democracy.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: In his report on legislation against terrorism, Lord Lloyd of Berwick devotes an important part of his introduction to a discussion about the nature of terrorism—what makes it different from, and so much worse than even other serious crimes. He suggests several possible reasons. The first, he suggests, is that a single incident of terrorism may cause many deaths, but, as he says, there is nothing special about terrorism in that respect—the same applies to any multiple killing.
The second possible reason that Lord Lloyd discusses is the "indiscriminate nature" of terrorist offences, but he then says that that, too, does not distinguish terrorist offences from other serious crimes as, on one hand, the victims of many crimes are unknown to the perpetrator, and on the other, many terrorist acts are directed at specific known individuals.
Lord Lloyd suggests, therefore, that
neither of these reasons ‖ serve sufficiently to explain the singular sense of horror and revulsion created by terrorist crime".
He concludes that the reason why terrorism produces that singular horror and revulsion is that
terrorist crime is seen as an attack on society as a whole, and our democratic institutions. It is akin to an act of war.
Those are powerful words, but they accurately define the nature of terrorism and the threat that it poses to our society.
Those scores of thousands who went into the city of Manchester on the beautiful Saturday morning of 15 June 1996, expected to be going about their business, shopping, serving in the shops or simply enjoying the sunshine in one of the most vibrant city centres in the United Kingdom. That expectation was suddenly shattered by the huge bomb placed there by the Provisional IRA, with no concern for the safety of the public or for the future of that city. It was thanks only to the professionalism and courage of the police, the other emergency services and

the public that—astonishingly—no one was killed. Hundreds of people could have been murdered in that blast, and 200 were indeed injured.
For those caught up in the blast, and for the whole country, the planting of that bomb, like every other outrage perpetrated by the IRA, amounted to an act of war, not just against a democratically elected Government but against the whole of our society.
As I saw when I visited the area later, the scale of the destruction could not properly be conveyed by television or photographs: it had to be seen to be believed. The great city centre of Manchester looked like Beirut at the height of its civil war. Colleagues who represent the city may wish to say more about the impact of the bomb and its aftermath. I simply want to pay tribute to all who were there that day and to the extraordinary efforts made since by the city council, the chamber of commerce, businesses and community groups, and by the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know has been most helpful to the city.
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, terrorist acts have continued in Northern Ireland, and major devastation on the mainland has been averted only by the skill of the security forces and the police. I pay tribute to all of them.
I also endorse the Home Secretary's appeal to the IRA to end its violence, and his appeal to those on the Unionist side not to be provoked into violent retaliation.
Because of the particular and terrifying nature of terrorism, there must be, so long as a threat remains, specific anti-terrorist legislation in respect both of terrorist offences and of procedures for preventing and detecting the commission of those offences. It might be helpful at this juncture if I remind the House of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when, as shadow Home Secretary, he spoke in the renewal debate in 1994:
It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation … We in the House share a total and complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to defeat it."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300.]
It was of course the Labour Government who introduced the prevention of terrorism Act in 1974 and who ensured its renewal every year they were in government. Last year, we helped to ensure that the renewal order went through; we shall do so again this year. In government, so long as the terrorist threat remains and there is no lasting peace, we shall maintain and operate the powers in the PTA, with two changes with which I shall deal in a moment.
Last year, too, we showed our active support for anti-terrorist legislation when we ensured the rapid passage through this House and the other place of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act. It gave the police additional powers, in clearly defined circumstances, of stop and search and of control of bomb threat areas. As it turned out, the legislation was more timely than might have been imagined by some. When I spoke to the police in Manchester after the bomb outrage, they told me that the additional powers had proved very useful.
The threat of terrorism comes not just from the Provisional IRA. Both the Rowe and Lloyd reviews spell out the much wider terrorist threat to which a great many countries, including the United Kingdom, are still subject. The Lloyd review contains a rather chilling statistic, at paragraph 1.8, to the effect that between 1990 and 1995


Europe's share of attacks by international terrorists rose from 18 per cent. of the world total to 62 per cent. of that total.
We have long been committed to two changes in the PTA. The first concerns the introduction of a judicial element in determining extensions of detention. At present, under section 14 of the PTA, a police officer may arrest and detain a suspect where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he may be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
By contrast, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arrest and detention in respect of a non-terrorist offence are possible only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of a particular arrestable offence. Under section 14 of the PTA, reasonable suspicion goes much wider than the commission of a specific offence. Indeed, the phrase in section 14, as Lloyd pointed out, which refers to being concerned in the commission of an act of terrorism, is not in itself an offence.
Under PACE the initial detention may last for only 36 hours and may be extended only by decision of a magistrate for a further two and a half days, to make a total of four days. Under the PTA, however, the initial detention is for up to 48 hours. Thereafter, the detention may be extended for a further five days by decision of the Secretary of State, to make a total of seven days.
The case for a wider power of arrest and for potentially longer periods of detention than those laid down in PACE is a practical one connected with the particular nature of terrorist offences and their more complicated investigation. The argument is well aired by Lord Lloyd in chapter 8 of his review. He concludes that he has
no doubt that [these powers] have been of great value to the police.
I do not in the least argue with that conclusion, but like so many before me, I argue that it is inappropriate for a decision about an extension of detention in these circumstances to be made by a Secretary of State, however careful and fair he may be, rather than by someone of judicial standing who is clearly independent of the Executive.
The present position is, in our judgment, wrong in principle and has brought us into conflict, as Lord Lloyd points out, with our obligations under the European convention on human rights, as a decision of that European Court in the Brogan case clearly established.
The European convention on human rights is one of the proudest creations that we have achieved for the whole of Europe. Our continued adherence to it is, happily, not a matter of party dispute. The Home Secretary told the House on 20 February that
the advantages of our continued adherence to the European convention on human rights and to the European Court outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, I think that we should continue to adhere to that convention."—[Official Report, 20 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 1034.]
The need in principle for judicial involvement in PTA decisions has long been accepted by Ministers. In 1989 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), said:
We continue to look for a judicial mechanism".—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 65.]

Lord Colville used to carry out the annual reviews of the PTA. He was of the resolute opinion that there should be judicial involvement, and he said so in his 1989 and 1990 reviews. He was succeeded a few years ago by Mr. John Rowe QC.
In past years, Mr. Rowe has argued against judicial involvement, but this year he said at paragraph 84 that his view had changed, not least because judges are now much more involved in one-sided, ex parte and secret hearings in respect of applications for public interest immunity certificates.
I understand the argument that the Secretary of State advanced—it has a familiar ring for those of us involved in discussions on the Police Bill—about the need not to embroil the judiciary, where there is not a good reason for doing so, in decisions that must be decided ex parte and might involve intelligence.
Mr. Rowe points out, as the reason for his change of mind, that
Judges are now accustomed to hearing public interest immunity applications, in which the prosecution make an application for a judicial decision as to whether documents should be disclosed to the defence; often the prosecution's contention is that it should not make disclosure, on the ground that to do so would reveal the existence and identity of an informer or other sensitive material. One could well describe such material as 'intelligence'. Often it occurs that the defendant and his lawyers are not aware of the fact that such an application is being made; sometimes they know but are not present at it. The judge hears only the prosecution; and he hears details of the 'intelligence'.
Mr. Rowe was compelled by that argument to accept in principle that there should be judicial involvement in decisions on extensions of detention. Unfortunately, with reasoning that I frankly did not find convincing, he then concluded that, although a judicial element could be introduced in England and Wales, it could not be introduced in Northern Ireland.
Lord Lloyd also considered the issue and in his report he was firmly of the view that judicial decision should replace that of the Secretary of State in extensions of detention. Lord Lloyd makes practical proposals for achieving that. He said that, in England and Wales, it would be by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and that, in Scotland, by the sheriff principal of Lothian and the Borders. He added that, in Northern Ireland, there is
at present no office which compares with these, and it might be necessary to create a new appointment".
As we all know, the whole of Lord Lloyd's recommendations are based on the assumption, which is written into his terms of reference, of a "lasting peace", but, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, although some of Lord Lloyd's recommendations could not safely be introduced until a lasting peace, some can be and, in our judgment, that one should be. It is worth noting that Lord Colville was of the same view when terrorist outrages were at their height.
In government, we shall take an early opportunity to introduce that judicial element. That will be part of an overall strategy by us to ensure that the judicial system in all parts of the United Kingdom commands the greater confidence of all law-abiding citizens, including those of all communities in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Wilshire: I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that I understand what he is


saying. Is he saying that he is prepared to overrule the recommendation of a practising lawyer, who has read all the papers and who understands the judicial process, not to involve the judicial process, even though the hon. Gentleman is not a lawyer and has not read the papers? Is he also saying that, although Lord Lloyd clearly says in his report that there is no question of anything in it being brought into effect until there is a permanent peace, the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ignore what Lord Lloyd says?

Mr. Straw: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman's attention may have wandered when the Secretary of State was speaking, but it is worth pointing out that he accepted that some of the recommendations by Lord Lloyd could perfectly safely be introduced in advance of any lasting peace. Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide, on the recommendation of Ministers, which parts should be accepted. There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should know this fact, but I will correct him on one matter of personal detail and of some pride to me. I am legally qualified. Indeed, for a short and happy, although rather impecunious period, I practised at the Bar in chambers, which were headed by a then Conservative Member. I very much enjoyed that.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also asks whether I intend to overrule the recommendations of Mr. Rowe. I do not believe that the issue of overruling his views comes into it. He makes recommendations. Time and again, and rightly, Ministers come to the House to deliver a report by someone who is independent and they say, "We accept this particular recommendation; we do not accept that recommendation." The report by a distinguished judge of the Scottish High Court, Lord Cullen, contained recommendations that both sides of the House accepted and recommendations that both sides refused to accept. If the hon. Gentleman has read Mr. Rowe's report, he will find that Mr. Rowe accepts the principle that change is needed and I accept that too. It is a view that we have taken for a long time. Moreover, I accepted the argument because I think that it was well made.
I simply do not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne in distinguishing between Northern Ireland and the mainland. It is also worth bearing in mind that Viscount Colville not only conducted the overall review of the legislation in 1987 but subsequently conducted a series of reviews of the Acts' operation. He concluded that, despite the fact that terrorist outrages by the IRA and others were continuing, there should be a judicial element in decisions on extensions of detention in Northern Ireland as well as on the mainland.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last time we debated this subject I welcomed his assurances on that specific point and on exclusion orders? I should be grateful if he will make it clear that we are not accepting Lord Lloyd's recommendations as infallible and that, under the next Labour Government, there will be a general examination of all civil liberties principles. Will he also tell us when he anticipates ending the current practice—in the first Queen's Speech? Presumably we will need amending legislation—unless the change is

made by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland constitution, which might be possible. Where and when can we expect that change?

Mr. Straw: I will deal with those points in reverse order. I cannot give my hon. Friend the commitment that he seeks about the contents of a first Queen's Speech, except to say that I think that it will be a rather full Queen's Speech. If I am the Secretary of State, I will make the strongest bids that I can for Home Office matters. The second matter that he mentioned was on the Lloyd review. It would be an abdication of the responsibility of Ministers and of every other hon. Member, no matter how distinguished, simply to rubber-stamp a report. I do not think that any hon. Member subscribes to that proposition. At the end of my remarks, I will say how we will deal with Lord Lloyd's recommendations.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I should like to reiterate the point on commitments to review the civil liberties aspect of the matter. My principal opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is that people can go missing for seven days. Not only is that an abuse of the criminal justice system but it results in miscarriages of justice. I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to establish a judicial element in the matter, rather than requiring the Secretary of State's approval for holding people, but will he also undertake an examination of the periods that people can be held? Perhaps the period could again be set at four days, as provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which he mentioned. Will he also examine the possibility of notifying the families of those detained?

Mr. Straw: In chapter 8 of his report, in which he discusses current operation, Lord Lloyd considers at great length the issue of the period. There is no reason why my hon. Friend should have read Lord Lloyd—or re-read it, as I did yesterday—but it is the best exposition on why the investigation of terrorist offences is typically so much more complicated than in other, albeit very serious, non-terrorist offences. The report presents the practical argument on why the periods need to be longer while the current type of terrorist threat exists. I have made it clear that I accept that argument. However, that is all the more reason why extensions of detention which are considered to be wider and in excess of the powers provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be subject to judicial decision. I now believe that there is no reason for that not to be the case.
The second matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was on providing information to suspects' families. That point is dealt with in successive Rowe reviews and in the Lloyd review. I believe that the practice has greatly improved in recent years. Unless there are overwhelming reasons—to do with further potential terrorism or threats—I believe that families should be informed of the whereabouts of suspects.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two previous interventions from Labour Back Benchers give the impression that they perceive the essential threat to civil liberties to be posed by the legislation—which exists to protect individuals from


terrorism? Will he distance himself from that obvious nonsense? The manifest threat to civil liberties is from terrorism itself.

Mr. Straw: I thought that my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Leyton raised serious issues, which are matters of widespread concern. It is a matter of record that people who have taken the most strident attitude in opposing terrorism have expressed concerns about the absence of a judicial element in extending detention. One could hardly accuse Lord Lloyd of being soft on terrorism. He is a senior Law Lord and chairman of the Security Commission, and he resolutely holds the opinion that there is a need for a judicial element in such extensions. Another distinguished judge, Viscount Colville, held the same opinion. At the height of IRA terrorism, he said that there had to be a judicial element in extensions.
On the issue of civil liberties, I have always believed—I think that the belief is widely held on both sides of the House—that we should never stoop to the level of the terrorists, who deny civil rights to everyone. In the democratic Parliament of a democratic society, we must attempt to strike a balance. That was accepted by the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins, when he introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. When one has a threat that amounts to a declaration of war on a society, stringent measures—which would not be acceptable in normal circumstances—must be introduced. There must still be a balance, however, which is perhaps why we have come to a different view from the Secretary of State on extensions of detention and, as I shall explain in a moment, on exclusion orders.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman quoted Lord Colville, who said:
if we stoop to the level of terrorists and abandon altogether our fundamental liberties we have lost the battle against terrorism.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by its very nature, anti-terrorism legislation has been ad hoc legislation, to which further bits have been added as matters have changed? Elements were introduced separately from either the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Acts or from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts. Because of the nature of the past 25 years, perhaps that was the only way in which it could have been done.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are talking about the procedures identified by Lord Lloyd and attempting to achieve a peaceful situation, the House will have to have the vision to set up a completely new system of justice—one which will be able to command everyone's respect and protect civil and human liberties for all parts of this jurisdiction? Does he also agree that we will need a system that will not allow the abuses and wrongful convictions that we are seeing today, and one that will remove callousness and cynicism not only from terrorism itself, which is awful and atrocious, but from the administration of justice, which does make mistakes that fundamentally damage people's lives?

Mr. Straw: I accept a very great deal of what the hon. Gentleman says. As I said earlier, I think that it is crucial that we have the vision to build and strengthen institutions in all parts of the United Kingdom so that we can achieve

a greater level of confidence in the judicial system among all communities. That is important, and I believe that that was what Viscount Colville was talking about when he spoke about the dangers of stooping to the level of the terrorists.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I also wish to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point about stooping to the level of terrorists. Will he make it clear that when he talks about reform and repeal, he is not pandering to some of those on his Back Benches who support, endorse and encourage terrorists to the extent of bringing leading terrorists into this House? I refer, for example, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has never been slow to associate himself with the most outrageous members of the IRA. Will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) confirm that reform and repeal must be about strengthening the law, not weakening it?

Mr. Straw: I defer to no one in my detestation of terrorism and my hostility to the IRA. I believe that that feeling is shared across the House. Picking up also on a point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I shall deal in a moment with how, after 23 years of so-called temporary provisions, we must promptly establish some permanent arrangements that balance the need to deal with terrorism and the need to protect civil liberties.
The second change to which we have long been committed concerns exclusion orders. The orders apply only to Irish terrorism and amount to internal exile, which, I understand, was last practised in this country under Henry VIII. The effect of the orders is bizarre. We are one kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but a terrorist who is regarded as so dangerous that he may not be allowed anywhere on the mainland is allowed to walk freely in Northern Ireland. In reverse, a suspect may be banned from Belfast, but not from Canary Wharf or Manchester.
Lord Lloyd's unequivocal view was that exclusion orders should be removed from the statute book. His review, of course, was based on the assumption of a lasting peace. However, as I have already pointed out, the most recent full-scale review, by Lord Colville, was based on no such assumption. Terrorism then was at a continuing high level. Despite that, Lord Colville said that exclusion orders were
the most draconian in the present Act".
He continued:
I am not convinced that the ends justify the means …Exclusion orders should not be renewed or replaced.
He went on to say that removing exclusion orders from the statute book would be the correct decision
both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom, and this country's reputation in that respect among the international community.
Although Mr. Rowe has supported the use of the orders, he acknowledged in his review last year that there were in the security forces
a fair number of officers, of all ranks, who held the opposite view".
That is, they were against the orders. He went on to note that
a known and experienced member of …terrorist organisations can be noticed at port and followed thereafter and kept under surveillance.


One striking aspect of this year's Rowe review is the reduction in the use of the orders. In 1988, there were 122 exclusion orders against entry to the mainland. When Mr. Rowe wrote his report, there were just 24 in force. As we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there are now only 23. No order has been made since 1994, despite the cessation of the ceasefire. In Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State has abandoned their use. He revoked all the then current orders in 1995 and none has been made since.
Last year, I repeated our long-standing opposition to the use of the orders. Their utility is open to question in the security forces and outside. Whatever their use—it cannot be much—it is far outweighed by the breach of basic human rights that they entail. In government, we shall implement Lord Colville's recommendations and neither renew nor replace the orders. Existing orders will be revoked as soon as practicable. We shall then take an early legislative opportunity to remove the power from the statute book.
I have made frequent references to the review conducted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick into the future of anti-terrorist legislation. I should like to conclude with some general remarks about the review. First, the House should be indebted to Lord Lloyd and to Mr. Justice Kerr for the thoroughness and clarity of their report, as well as to Professor Paul Wilkinson of Aberdeen university for his encyclopedic second volume. We called for such a review for three years, on the assumption of a lasting peace, and we were delighted when at last it was established.
Some of Lord Lloyd's recommendations, such as those to narrow the scope and time of detentions, could come safely into force only when a lasting peace has been achieved. Others, such as his proposals on forfeiture in section 13 of the current PTA, could sensibly be brought into force before that, and would assist the fight against terrorism.
There are two wider points. The first concerns the interaction of the PTA and PACE. Lord Lloyd says that if PACE had been in force in 1974,
many of the procedural provisions contained in the PTA and the EPA might not have been necessary, or might have taken a different form.
He goes on to say that it is now possible to regard the PTA
largely as a collection of modified PTA powers.
There will always be a need for special provisions to deal with terrorist offences, but they should, as far as possible, be part of a single arrest and detention code.
My second point leads on from that. At the end of his report, Lord Lloyd says that there should be public discussion of possible new powers and offences in advance of any future emergency that could prompt the introduction of further powers. Taking those two points together, we should not shelve the Lloyd report until a lasting peace has been achieved, but should begin a process of consultation on it to consider whether legislation could be drafted that would be robust and flexible enough to deal with a lasting peace in Northern Ireland and conditions in which a further emergency may arise. In government, I intend to start that process. Twenty-three renewals in 23 years have mocked the notion that the legislation is temporary.
The House is united in its determination to fight terrorism with every means consistent with a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. The provisions of anti-terrorist legislation are tough and, in many ways, unpalatable, but they are necessary to deter and defeat those who, in Lord Lloyd's words,
seek to wage war on society
and they have our support.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call anyone else to speak, I remind the House that the debate must end at 7 o'clock. It would therefore be prudent if speeches were shorter rather than longer.

Mr. Richard Needham: I shall try to assist you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am encouraged in some way that three more hon. Members are present for this, my last speech in the House, than there were for my maiden speech 18 years ago. On the other hand, perhaps that is one of the reasons why I have decided to leave.
This is the first debate on security in Northern Ireland in which I have participated, although I was the longest-serving Northern Ireland Minister. Having listened to the debate, I do not think that I would have noticed much difference as year followed year if I had participated in the earlier ones.
Many hon. Members are more knowledgeable than I am about security matters. That may say something about me. It may also say something about the esoteric nature of security issues in Northern Ireland. Many security issues are clouded in secrecy. Secrecy is clearly important in dealing with terrorism, but I do not believe that all of it is always necessary.
All hon. Members have accepted that no security solution will, on its own, halt the violence that leads to misery in the Province. If there is to be an end to violence, and if a solution is to be found—I hope that I shall be allowed to draw a little on my experiences at the Northern Ireland Office, although they did not include responsibility for security—it will be because of economic and social improvement for all the people of Northern Ireland, because of a political strategy that can lead over time to a political agreement and because of tough, fair and responsible Army and police pressure against violence.
I do not believe that a social and economic solution or a political strategy will work without the adoption of a successful and sensitive security policy by both the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Social and economic, political and security matters are the three legs of the stool that I discussed with my colleagues and other Northern Ireland Members when I was a Northern Ireland Minister.
The 1980s saw a dramatic change in the social and economic opportunities for Northern Ireland. It was also a time of political change. I think that the social and economic changes were welcomed, and enjoyed broad cross-community support, but I cannot say the same of the political changes. On the social and economic side, the money that was spent to improve housing, and the establishment of the Housing Executive, transformed one of the core grievances of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. To its credit, the Housing Executive has effectively taken housing out of politics in Northern Ireland.
I accept that the Fair Employment Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement left many scars on the Unionist community, but I continue to believe that those two measures will be the foundation stones if the Catholic community is to gain the trust required to make Northern Ireland work. I accept that others will not agree.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take this opportunity—I may not have another—to put on record the respect and affection with which he is regarded, as the longest-serving Northern Ireland Minister, in the north of Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any views about intercepted telephone conversations being used in evidence, especially in a political context?

Mr. Needham: I have many views on that subject, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the publication of my book to discover them.
I understand the Unionist opposition to political moves, but in the face of that opposition and problems with Sinn Fein in the council chamber, partnership and power sharing in Northern Ireland councils had increased from five to 17 councils by the early 1990s. The process was assisted by the efforts of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). There was no question but that, by the early 1990s, social and economic progress and political partnerships were having an effect across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland.
It was my ambition to involve people—as much as possible under the political constraints within which we operated—in the decisions that mattered to them at every level and at every opportunity. Partnership is an overworked word, but it was the essence of all that we tried to do in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. We introduced initiatives such as Making Belfast Work, the Belfast festival, the Tall Ships, Making Derry Work, "There's Something in the Air", and the Carrickfergus initiative. There were developments at Coalisland and Belleek, which were supported by the International Fund for Ireland, and the redevelopment of Armagh. Marks and Spencer opened a store in Ballymena. We conserved and restored the centre of Downpatrick; twinned Newry and Pittsburgh; introduced the Tyrone initiative, with which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and I were involved; and there were the Deny-Boston ventures.
Those initiatives, and countless others, were put in place in an attempt to involve local people and, most important, councillors and Members of Parliament. We gave them the opportunity to do what they do best: promote their communities in Northern Ireland on the United Kingdom mainland and across the world. They were very good at that.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It is not a cosy tribute. I am not one of those who say that, in Northern Ireland, the best fail to go into politics. I think that those from Northern Ireland who go into politics—whatever community they represent—are immensely and enormously brave, when confronted on both sides by violence and potential terrorism. There are not too many Rev. Ian Paisleys in Hampshire, Seamus Mallons in Wiltshire or David Trimbles in Buckinghamshire. I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not mind my

saying that he would do a little better in his new role if he did not occasionally look like a Christmas tree and jump around like a dervish in front of the television cameras. The people who represent Northern Ireland in this House are all remarkable in their own way, and it has been a pleasure to work with them. We enjoyed a degree of trust in our working relationship.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I am reluctant to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman, he must now relate his points—which I assumed to be background material—to the issue at hand.

Mr. Needham: They were background points, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is that, because we achieved those changes together, we were able to bring the men of violence towards our debate and away from their agenda of trying to secure change by revolutionary means. We discussed jobs and opportunities for Northern Ireland's long-term future.
The situation has not changed altogether, even after the traumas of the past year. Mr. Adams is promoting himself in the local newspapers as someone who delivers results for west Belfast. The advertisements claim:
Gerry Adams is working for West Belfast on a full time basis".
I hope that someone has told the Department of Health and Social Services about that. He claims that he is responsible for investments by F. G. Wilson and investments in Springvale. He even claims that he identified the Springvale investment site. Developments in west Belfast have occurred despite Mr. Adams. I do not know what he thinks he did for jobs in west Belfast by blowing up Mackies.
The Springvale project was my initiative and that of the Department of the Environment and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who I am sorry is not in his place today. He has worked tirelessly to lobby, cajole and bully Northern Ireland Ministers, the United States and the European Union to provide assistance. Wherever the hon. Gentleman and I went, we found that the image of Mr. Adams deterred potential investors. The Industrial Development Board offered the highest grant to firms locating in west Belfast because the local Member of Parliament was an apologist for terrorists. The only jobs that Mr. Adams has brought to west Belfast are in the undertaking business. The only assurances that he can give to those who come to west Belfast are that his henchmen will not blow up those who come in, but they will kneecap those who try to break in.
If Mr. Adams had wanted to help the people of west Belfast, he would have taken his seat in this place when he was a Member of Parliament. I do not know how he thinks he can do anything in the United States when he does not have a visa, and he would not be welcome anywhere in Brussels. He has done nothing for the people of west Belfast—he certainly did nothing for them when I was in the Province. The people of west Belfast have a very good Member of Parliament at present, and they should hang on to him.
Perhaps one of the most disappointing and difficult aspects of the task that we undertook in the 1980s in bringing people together was our attempt to involve the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in our activities. Of course, there were exceptions—General John Wilsey fully understood the strategy of the three-legged stool—


but the security forces generally followed their own agenda, about which the rest of us knew little. We tried to involve them: I sent my officials to the RUC stations seeking to include them at every level. We were quite successful. For example, the local police were interested in what we were doing. Nevertheless, the consequences of that separateness were difficult. At best, we were confronted with the "safe" option when we went to the security forces for advice and help.
We were told that we could not have litter bins in Royal avenue, because bombs might be placed in them. On the face of it, that is perfectly reasonable—but the IRA placed bombs in shops, not litter bins. As a result, we had burnt-out shops and litter all over the streets. We were told that we could not plant trees because the iron railings around them could be used as stakes. We were told that we could not lay cobblestones, although Belfast is full of them, in case they were ripped up and used as bricks.
There were arguments for such a stance, but we were trying to achieve normalcy and to bring people from both communities back to the centre of the cities, where they could work, eat, drink and occasionally go to bed together, and that was not easy when we were constantly being constrained. It was worse than that, because there was no clear political leadership.
I spent an enormous amount of time trying to assist Coalisland, which was at the centre of IRA terrorism and had a Sinn Fein presence. When information about my trip there was leaked to the IRA, a remarkable RUC inspector said that he would carry me in on his shoulders if necessary to show the people of Coalisland that we were trying to help them. Having spent an immense amount of time, money and effort trying to achieve that objective, within three months of my leaving, the Parachute Regiment went through Coalisland and would have undone in one night everything that we had put together in two years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who, with Jim Canning and others locally, managed to maintain the community initiative that we had worked so hard to achieve.
I asked Lord Prior, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whether during his time in office he had any involvement with the regiments that were chosen to go to Northern Ireland. He told me that he never had any involvement: it was always the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence. That was true in my time, too.
These matters are of major importance when we consider the continuance order and how security and policing should be undertaken in Northern Ireland. That brings me to what happened at Drumcree. Even if we allow for the fact that there was manipulation by bad men on both sides—and goodness me there was enough of it—we should recognise that the lack of political leadership led to a developing loss of confidence between the communities, and a lack of confidence in the RUC and the Government.
The Government seemed to say that policing was an operational matter and had nothing to do with them. The Chief Constable said that if the two communities wanted to fight each other, there was nothing he could do to stop them. As a result, we are debating this matter today. The consequences have been dire for the people of Ulster. They are paying for those mistakes, although they are not

responsible for them. The people of Northern Ireland have no say in who governs them. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was right to talk about Manchester: he said that one had to see it to believe it. That happened once in Manchester: it happened every month in Belfast, month after month, year after year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take this as a rebuke, but I suggest that he would be wise to mention as well the destruction in Belfast, because people may think that he does not understand what happens in Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland are being held responsible and are being forced to pay for mistakes that are none of their making. The vast majority of people of Northern Ireland want nothing to do with terrorism: it terrorises them. The IRA's activities have resulted in more murders in the Catholic community than in the Protestant community, and the Protestant community has suffered enough. Their health budget is being cut to pay for things that have nothing to do with them.
When I was Minister responsible for the health service in Northern Ireland, the health budget was 25 per cent. more than that for England, and for good reason: because of the levels of morbidity, deprivation and unemployment. The health budget was the same as that for Scotland. Expenditure in Scotland is now 30 per cent. higher than in England, whereas expenditure in Northern Ireland is only 13 per cent. higher, so it is 17 per cent. lower than in Scotland.
It cannot be right that the old and the ill of Northern Ireland have to pay for the mistakes of the Government, who are responsible for security, when the people have no say in the political affairs of their Province. The effect of that will be to widen the divisions and to produce an even greater lack of confidence in the Government.
I have always maintained that, if terrorists strike in Northern Ireland to the detriment of the people, the Government should be determined to rebuild what has been destroyed better than it was before. That is how to galvanise people and bring communities together to fight terrorism.
Security is the responsibility of the British Government, supported by the Government of the Republic. It is up to the Government to co-ordinate the policies that make up the three legs of the stool that I described. They need the Republic's support to do that. The police and the Army must be engaged in the social and economic and political initiatives that the rest of us are trying to make a success in Northern Ireland. All three legs of that stool, while interdependent, are designed to help overcome violence. That means asking for the opinions and listening to the advice of those responsible and knowledgeable in the Northern Ireland civil service and in the community at large, and acting on that advice. I am delighted to say that the new Chief Constable seems to understand that, and he must be supported in his efforts to integrate the three policies more closely.
In the last few months of my time in Northern Ireland, we put in place institutional arrangements to achieve that integration, which have since been disbanded. Tough and difficult decisions will have to be made on both sides of the border in both communities if the present appalling levels of personal violence and intimidation are to be dealt with. That cannot happen unless both communities and their leaders understand the need for those measures.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be open with them, open with the Republic and in charge of what is going on.
Whatever my concerns about the difficulty of integrating the police and the Army into the Government machine and strategy, the breakdown of the ceasefire is the sole responsibility of Sinn Fein-IRA. No one has done more for peace than the Prime Minister. It is obscene to suggest that he is to blame for any breakdown, when he is the first Prime Minister in 25 years to show real determination to do something. We are here today because the IRA has us here. The IRA's return to violence is perverse.
If the ceasefire proved anything, it proved that, without violence, the economic border disappears. Londonderry becomes the hub of the north-west. Elderly people move there from Donegal or County Londonderry because of the facilities available in the city. Hospitals in the north-west start to rationalise their differing and overlapping services. Planning, power generation and tourism have no boundaries. When the economic border disappears—there is no police, no Army, no customs—social integration is bound to follow. After social and economic integration, political change is bound to come. I do not know what that political change will be, because it may take years. When that change comes, it will be built on mutual respect for the differing traditions and cultures of Ireland's communities, both north and south.
I know that violence enshrines hatred and division, but it also enshrines the border. It enshrines a border somewhere in the north of Ireland whether the loyalists constitute 60 per cent. of the population or 40 per cent. The IRA is primarily responsible for the violence. It is to blame for the divisions within Northern Ireland and within Ireland. If the IRA really wants to get rid of the border, all it has to do is get rid of violence. Until it does that, it will remain the implacable enemy of all of us who live in the British Isles.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I begin by correcting something said by the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham). He referred to the bombing incident in Manchester last year. For his information and for the information of the House, I should say that Manchester has been the subject of one or two previous acts of terrorism such as incendiary bombs and other incidents. Those incidents are on the record and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of them and thinks that such things occur only in Belfast. However, I do not want to labour that point.
It is a great tragedy that the House should have to debate the PTA. All hon. Members wish that we did not need such powers. The strength of the House is revealed when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber defend personal liberties. The Home Secretary should not get too sensitive when Labour Members question certain aspects. I believe that when there are evil people carrying out evil deeds, there must be powers of some sort. I am not saying that these measures are perfect, but, whoever the Government, something would be necessary.
Acts of terrorism are carried out by organisations other than just the IRA. Terrorism now occurs on a massive scale internationally. Only today I received a letter from a constituent complaining bitterly about acts of terrorism

in the middle east, where 10 Christians have been assassinated. The letter asked me to intervene with the Foreign Office and so on. We cannot allow terrorism to take over democracy, but, if we are not careful, it will happen. We need to take a grip on society.
Coming closer to home, it saddens me when I reflect on certain parts of Ireland where communities are being controlled by Mafia-type systems and where there is no democracy. It is bad for the community and I dread to think what it must be like for young children born into such a community. The secret Mafia-type control stymies any progress towards a better society.
I was pleased to note in the report on the PTA that the banks are increasingly playing their part by becoming more vigilant about money laundering. We all know that terrorists rely heavily on funding and the less money they have, the fewer dirty deeds they can carry out.
There is no use kidding ourselves about the fact that people are demanding better security, and we are here to reflect the views of those who elect us. There is a growing awareness and that is appreciated nowhere more than in my city of Manchester. Paragraph 18 on page nine of the report refers to major damage and explosions in cities, and a classic example of that is what occurred in Manchester on 15 June 1996.
We were shocked by the hatred poured on to the city. We have always prided ourselves on good relationships with north and south Ireland. We have exchanges with them and there are plenty of Irish people living in the city. We were shocked by what happened to us. It was a dastardly and cold-blooded act by evil people. It happened at about 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning in a busy part of central Manchester, which was peopled mostly by women and children doing their shopping. Do not let us kid ourselves and say that it was a rebellion against the system intended only to damage property. The bomb was placed right in the centre of the population—about 80,000 were going about their business and enjoying themselves. They were shattered by that dirty, evil and unforgivable act. What I saw in the aftermath—women and children pouring with blood and having to be evacuated—is engraved on my heart.
I have seen the site several times and it was a miracle that nobody was killed. A total of 200 people were seriously injured, hospitalised or traumatised. They were mainly women and children—innocent kids who did not know anything about it. A 3,300 lb bomb was placed in the centre of ordinary people. As a result, 100,000 sq m of retail and office space was immediately lost in my city and hundreds of innocent people lost their jobs. A total of 670 businesses were destroyed and a further consequence was the loss of £5 million in revenue from car parking.
Figures vary as to the total cost, but I made some inquiries today in Manchester town hall and was told that the estimated cost is £430 million. The private sector has provided £350 million towards that cost and the public sector has provided £80 million, which includes £43 million from the Government and £20 million from Europe.
I must tell the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that we do not believe that this is a Manchester problem: it is the nation's problem. It is not on for the ratepayers


of Manchester to have to pick up such a massive bill. We cannot contain it. We have not been treated in the best way.

Mr. David Trimble: I intervene mainly to endorse the hon. Gentleman's point that there is an obligation on the state to ensure that when people suffer damage of such a nature, they receive compensation. It is particularly appropriate to consider those in private houses such as the hundreds of houses near the Canary Wharf site, some of which have not been fully repaired. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if the Government had simply extended to the whole of the United Kingdom the legislation that exists in Northern Ireland to provide compensation for criminal injuries and criminal damage, so that the cost, fell on the state rather than on private individuals or the local authority?

Mr. Eastham: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. When we met the Deputy Prime Minister after the bombing, I recall that we put those points to him. The bomb had a serious effect on small businesses, because many of them were not insured. Marks and Spencer and other large, wealthy companies can withstand such losses—although I do not say that they should have to—but small businesses cannot afford to pay high insurance premiums. Many of those small family businesses will never open again, and the city will be the poorer, because the variety of shopping in the centre was a big attraction.
It seems to me that there are two standards in the House. If we compare the compensation paid to farmers for the bovine spongiform encephalopathy problem—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the order before us tonight, which is primarily to consider the merits or otherwise of continuing the arrangements for suppressing terrorism.

Mr. Eastham: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am referring to the report, which mentions explosions. I am taking the opportunity to expand and elaborate on what the report does not tell the House and the rest of the country. I think it is reasonable to make one or two comments on that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made those one or two comments. I have tried to be generous.

Mr. Eastham: There seems to be some attempt to stop my speech. I say to the Home Secretary that if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can pay £3.5 billion to the farmers, it is not unreasonable for the Government to dig deeper to help with the costs of the bombing incidents in Manchester, London and Northern Ireland. We have two standards for compensation, and more assistance should be given to those who suffer from the effects of bombings.
I received a letter today from the Department of the Environment informing me that Manchester would share £2.5 million with Tower Hamlets to cover some of the costs of the bombings. I sincerely believe that that is only a drop in the bucket, given the devastation and problems that we faced.
It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the behaviour of the Manchester services in the crisis. I wish to put on record our admiration for the Greater Manchester police force. Chief Superintendent Peter Harris and his team did a marvellous job with great calmness. Their actions were an example to all police forces elsewhere in the country. I also wish to mention the ambulance service and the hospitals. Their response was of the highest order, and they have the greatest admiration of the people of my city.
I also wish to mention Manchester town hall which effectively provided resources during the crisis. The lord mayor, Councillor Derek Shaw, had taken office only about three weeks before and had to deal with the disaster and all the media people descending on him. He did his job with great dignity, and he has made his contribution to the funding by setting up a special fund.
There are lessons to be learnt from the bombing. The Home Secretary must take a fresh look at security. We need more security cameras with better image recognition. We must also reconsider the road systems in shopping areas. I recognise that some powers are needed and that we must have an Act. I do not know whether we have the right Act, but we need something. People are entitled to live without fear and that should be the purpose of the Act.

Mr. David Wilshire: The case for renewal of the Act goes far wider than Northern Ireland, but I shall confine my remarks to the affairs of the Province. Most of us who speak on such occasions hope that every speech will be the last, but—as I have said in the past—I fear that that is not to be, for reasons that I will mention in a moment.
I have no doubt that renewal is unavoidable this year. Mr. Rowe's report makes that clear. He refers to 15 terrorist murders and several mortar attacks in the past year. I would add to the list the hundreds of acts of torture and punishment beatings that took place. I classify those as terrorism just as much as mortar attacks and murder.
Mr. Rowe's conclusion is simple: the Act's powers remain necessary. I regret that as, I am sure, does the House, but the powers remain necessary and must be kept on the statute book. Since we last debated the Act and renewed the powers, Lord Lloyd's report has been published. I hope that we can follow the recommendations in that report as quickly as possible. It is important to note that, when the time comes for us to follow the recommendations, we realise that the report confirms that some form of anti-terrorism legislation will remain necessary. I agree. So much for those Labour Members who claim that we do not need a prevention of terrorism Act. The report gives the lie to that assertion.
Whatever the future may hold, we clearly still have terrorism in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It gives me no pleasure to say that I see little prospect of that terrorism ending in the near future. If that is so, it is essential that we do not drop our guard and it is vital that we do not abandon the Act. It is also important that we guard against being tricked into thinking that progress has been made in Northern Ireland, when it patently has not. I have in mind the woolly thinking that says that we can equate progress towards peace in Northern Ireland with the reinstatement of the so-called ceasefire declared by Sinn Fein-IRA.
The original Sinn Fein-IRA so-called ceasefire was not progress and was no reason to abandon the powers in the Act. It was nothing more than a tactical manoeuvre. It was never a real step towards the permanent peace that we need before the recommendations in Lord Lloyd's report can be implemented. If we look back over the past year, the reality of the so-called ceasefire becomes clear. The ceasefire that is being used as an argument for progress happened because Sinn Fein-IRA was facing oblivion. They needed time to regroup and re-equip, to recruit and train again, and to target again. They needed time to try to wrong-foot the Government.
During the whole period of the so-called ceasefire that we are now being asked to fall for again, Sinn Fein-IRA was planning and building the Canary Wharf bomb. During that period there were also seven terrorist murders. Some ceasefire. Some reason for thinking that the powers in the Act are not necessary.
We need look no further than that temporary so-called ceasefire for justification for the Act, and for making it crystal clear that reinstating it would not be enough to make the Act unnecessary. In connection with Northern Ireland, I judge that the Act will continue to be necessary until we make some real progress towards permanent peace. When we debate the Act and say that it must stay in place until there is progress, we must make it clear what we mean by progress. I believe that three things will have to happen before we no longer need to debate the renewal of the Act. First, there must be an end to all violence, not just some violence. Last time there was simply a reduction in the number of murders, and torture continued. Reinstating that position will not be sufficient to make the Act unnecessary.
Secondly, there must be a verifiable declaration that all violence has ended for ever. The weasel words that we heard last time simply will not be enough to make renewing the Act cease to be a fact of life.
The third thing that must happen before we can stop having the annual debates is a decommissioning of all arms and explosives. I must make it clear that I direct those remarks not at Sinn Fein-IRA alone; they apply equally to all terrorism. Terrorism is evil and there can be no compromise with it. I draw no distinction, and I do not believe that anybody in the House will wish to do so.
I realise that some hon. Members will simply say that I am being unrealistic. However, it is just as unrealistic to expect, if that is what their argument will be, that the ordinary, decent law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will take the reinstatement of a so-called ceasefire at face value. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect democratic politicians, either in Northern Ireland or here, to sit down with people who have guns in their pockets and Semtex in their briefcases.
It follows from all that that I am clear in my mind that the Act remains necessary, and will continue to be necessary until some progress is made. I am afraid that that will be the case for some time to come, so I urge the whole House to vote for the Act to continue.

Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate, although inevitably it is on a sad subject—perhaps the saddest that I have had the chance to debate in my four years in the House. Freedom of the individual is, of course, important to

people in my party—but, as I am sure the whole House accepts, freedom of the individual must never override other people's individual freedoms. That is why, in current circumstances, my party believes that, sadly, the Act is still needed and should be renewed for a further year.
It is important to keep our ideas about the legislation in proportion. It should not be seen as the solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. That solution will come, if it ever does, not through the Act but through political developments—through talks and a new, widely acceptable settlement. Security legislation is not adequate to deal with anything other than purely security issues. To treat it as a panacea would be to elevate the terrorists to a status well above their due.
Since the Canary Wharf bombing on 9 February last year, the IRA has continued a series of outrages. There have been other villains in the case, too, but inevitably we shall all agree that the IRA and the atrocities that it has committed are the main problem. It is fair to give a note of tribute to the former loyalist terrorists who have resisted the temptation to reactivate their terrorism.

Mr. Allason: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Provisional IRA is the main problem, is he not overlooking the other bombs in London? There was the Saudi bomb outside the newspaper office, and the most recent prosecution of Palestinian terrorists, for the bomb outside the Israeli embassy.

Mr. Rendel: I certainly do not overlook other terrorism, and I shall refer to it briefly later.
I was sounding a note of praise for the former loyalist terrorists who have shown considerable restraint in the face of great provocation over the past year or two. They have avoided the trap set for them by the IRA, which has been trying to tempt them back into violence. Had they fallen into that trap, the only winners would have been the IRA.
A further note of praise is due to the security services, which have scored several notable successes over the past year, and which, according to the Rowe report, have been exercising their powers with considerable restraint.
I shall now talk about the individual aspects of the legislation, starting with one of the most crucial but also one of the most controversial—the exclusion orders. The Rowe report makes it clear that the power is wide. It is interesting that no new exclusion orders were applied during 1996—as a result of which, the number of those against whom exclusion orders are outstanding has fallen considerably.
The power to make an exclusion order is a strong power, consigning people to what may seem to some of them like internal exile, despite the fact that many of them have not been convicted of any offence. It could be said, and I have some sympathy with the view, that the existence of the exclusion order implies that it is okay to be a terrorist in Northern Ireland, but one cannot be a terrorist on the mainland. That is a worrying aspect of the power.
I would be interested to know why the Government felt that only half the exclusion orders needed to be reviewed last year. In the light of the number of orders that were not renewed, there is a strong case to be made for reviewing all the orders in place every year.
As for the detention legislation, the recent Bridgewater Four case has highlighted some of the dangers of keeping people in detention. Extended periods of detention can cause havoc, even to the most settled minds, and can lead some people into thinking that things are true when they are not, and sometimes even into confessing to crimes that they have not committed. We must therefore be careful in our use of detention. I am happy to say that considerable restraint seems to have been used, as is clear from the report. I am happy that there has been maximum restraint; indeed, that is the minimum that can be expected.
Closed circuit television has been mentioned already today, and it is mentioned in the Rowe report, too. It must be a powerful and effective way of improving security, especially at ports and airports. It is an impressive technological advance. The Home Secretary has recently visited the CCTV scheme in my constituency, and I know that he was impressed by it.
CCTV can be useful both in tracing terrorists and other criminals after the event, and as a deterrent, to stop people committing such offences, because they think that they are much more likely to be caught if they do.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, that terrorism should not be seen in the context of Northern Ireland alone, although the balance of the debate and of the Rowe report confirms the fact that the legislation has been mainly concerned with, and of use in, Northern Ireland.
Professor Paul Wilkinson makes it clear in the second volume of Lord Lloyd's report that international terrorism is certainly not on the decline and that, if anything, it is increasing. There is therefore a good case to be made for having some legislation to deal with that aspect of the problem, but it is arguable that the legislation before us is not the best way of doing that, especially when we consider that 569 people were detained under the legislation for incidents in Northern Ireland, of whom 155 were subsequently charged, but only two were detained for terrorist activities not related to Northern Ireland, neither of whom was charged.
I am glad to see that for the first time the section of John Rowe's report that deals with human rights has been expanded into a whole chapter. A balance obviously needs to be struck between the measures needed to combat terrorism and the possible infringement of civil rights.
There is widespread support in Northern Ireland among all parties for a Bill of Rights. That constitutional innovation could stop the United Kingdom being dragged embarrassingly through the European Court of Human Rights and could kick-start further discussions at Stormont and provide a useful counterbalance to some of the powerful legislation before us. I urge the next Home Secretary, whoever it may be, to deal with that issue immediately on assuming office.
The legislation is a regrettable necessity. It is a powerful antibiotic to the bacteria of terrorism, but it must be administered only as long as is necessary. My party believes that it is still needed for a further year, even though we have never had much enthusiasm for it. Most hon. Members of all parties would agree that we pass this legislation without much enthusiasm, merely because we believe that it is needed for the time being, and most of us fervently hope that it will not be needed for much longer.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcome Mr. Rowe's finding that
those who use the Act do so with care and responsibility.
I would like to quarrel—but I cannot—with his analysis that
the present situation both as to Northern Ireland and the international field reveals a continuing threat of terrorism
and I endorse his conclusion that there is
a need of the provisions of the Act
noting that he refers to all its provisions.
In passing, I welcome the strong emphasis on the threat of international terrorism. Mr. Rowe writes that the threat is as great as ever and acknowledges that even if Irish and Northern Ireland issues were resolved, there would be a continuing need for the Act. Like other hon. Members, I have felt some frustration in the past at the slow progress in getting at the funding of terrorism, so I take particular satisfaction in Mr. Rowe's reporting of movement on that front.
I shall be ultra-selective in dealing with the two main points in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw): judicial participation in extensions of detention, and exclusion orders.
I have an open mind on judicial participation. The hon. Gentleman has not yet convinced me that he is right, and I am more persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I was surprised by Mr. Rowe's sudden Damascus road conversion in the course of the past 12 months. A year ago Mr. Rowe described judicial participation as
unusual …a straining of the judicial function
and argued that a judge acting in that capacity would be acting
in name only…exercising a function which could be called judicial only because he happened to be a judge by his profession and occupation.
That has all changed.
The hon. Member for Blackburn has not convinced me, but I find Mr. Rowe's reasoning even more confusing. He gives three reasons why judicial participation should not take place in Northern Ireland but could, by implication, take place in England and Wales.
The first reason is that judges in Northern Ireland could not be asked to hear the extension of detention applications, because if they took part in them they would be regarded as an arm of the Executive. The second reason is that there are many more such applications in Northern Ireland than in the remainder of the United Kingdom, and the third is that
extensions of detention are an obvious part of the process of arrest …and detention in holding centres.
The first point would apply wherever judges participate in the process, because the function is the same whether it is in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales, so it is a strange argument. The argument concerning numbers is irrelevant, as it is the principle and practice that matter, regardless of the number of occasions on which judicial participation might take place. The third argument refers to a situation that is precisely the same in all parts of the United Kingdom. I am confused by Mr. Rowe's arguments as the two valid reasons that he offers for non-participation in Northern Ireland apply equally to other parts of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn is wrong about exclusion orders. He has failed to appreciate that their selective use is a key element in our anti-terrorist measures. He referred to paragraph 48 of the report, which says that some people have said that
it is better to allow known terrorists to enter the country and to follow them and so discover their associates and equipment.
That might be the case in some circumstances, but the best way in which to pursue matters at any time is an operational decision and the option of exclusion orders should be there.
The hon. Member for Blackburn has often claimed that the effects of exclusion orders are bizarre, but I do not believe that he appreciates the fact that the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts do not merely happen but are the outcome of weeks, months or even years of planning and preparation, and that restricting the movement of key individual players can play havoc with that process of planning and preparation.
By the use of exclusion orders, we can irreparably damage the terrorists' command and communications structures and practices, deter terrorist activity by letting terrorists know that our intelligence gathering is effective, prevent specific terrorist operations which involve movement from one part of the United Kingdom to another, and in many instances effectively remove individuals from front-line terrorist active service.
The hon. Member for Blackburn did not adequately address Mr. Rowe's support for exclusion orders: the report refers unequivocally to their effectiveness. Nor did the hon. Gentleman consider that, if the option of exclusion orders were no longer available, the security need that they seek to satisfy would not vanish and would have to be addressed by other means. If we did not have the orders, we could well have a considerable increase in detentions on intelligence and detentions for intelligence, which many would regard as undesirable, and the argument for the reintroduction of internment would be the stronger.
Last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said:
The need for the exclusion power is proven. It is effective. It is an essential weapon in the counter-terrorist armoury and it would be irresponsible to relinquish it."—[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1131.]
I am convinced that he is right.
The fundamental point of this debate is to recall that the primary function and duty of the state is to protect persons and property. If the state does not do that, there is a grave danger that individuals will start doing it for themselves. There are two unacceptable extremes of policy: a wait-to-be-bombed policy and a shoot-to-kill policy. We must find the formula that balances civil liberties with civil defence. It is my belief that we have it right.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I have been asked to speak for no longer than five minutes. I shall comply with that request, but I feel somewhat miffed that we do not have adequate time to discuss the continuance order before us. I find no fault with those who have spoken before me; they have had important things to say on a very important issue.
I listened with interest to what was said by the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham), who was a very good Northern Ireland Minister, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with his philosophy as to the causes and effects of terrorism. I could not but be touched by the emotion with which the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) spoke of the devastation in his city.
On the basis of what I have heard—and, indeed, on the basis of some of what I have read in Mr. John Rowe's report—I believe that there is still a lack of understanding in the House of the nature of terrorism. Hon. Members tell me that the solution must be a mixture of security, economic and social measures. Economic and social measures are important in every part of the kingdom, but they are not part of the solution to the problem of terrorism, because terrorism is not spontaneous: it does not derive from the denial of a particular right to a particular person or, indeed, a particular group of people.
In the past 25 years, inequities that used to exist in Northern Ireland have been put right time and again and I believe that we now have more checks and balances in our system than any other country in the western world. Yet terrorism thrives, because it is not spontaneous: it is strategic, and the IRA in particular is determined to fulfil its political and sectarian aspirations. Let us make no mistake about this: the IRA is more sectarian than political. We need only consider the murders along the frontier of the only sons of Protestant farmers who are getting old. We need only consider the Kingsmills murders. A vanload of workers was stopped, the Catholic member was stood to one side and the eight Protestants were gunned down.
That is what we are dealing with in terms of IRA terrorism: we are dealing with sectarianism at its worst. If we want to overcome that, we must do so in two ways. First, we must devise a counter-strategy of which the prevention of terrorism Act is part—a counter-strategy that has never been developed fully. Secondly, we must look at the community as a whole. We must take account of the 85 per cent. or perhaps 90 per cent. of the population, decent people who eschew violence, and make them aware of their obligation to oppose the terrorists.
I must leave the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) time to speak. Let me say, however, that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke very sensibly about the Act. He apologised for it—I do not know why—saying that it was regrettable but necessary for another year. The IRA's strategy, however, is to maintain the present position for as long as it can withstand the resolve of the rest of us. I do not apologise for the Act; I believe that it must stay, and that it must be strengthened by whichever party comes to power after 1 May.
One of the important things that we must do is to reintroduce the broadcasting ban. I will tell the House one thing: Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and all those evil people will have more prime time this week on television and radio than I have had time to debate this important issue here at the heart of democracy.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Because of time constraints, I too will be very selective. I think that it was on 10 March 1993 that, through the generosity of


my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I had two minutes in which to speak in a debate on this subject; I have five minutes tonight. There are points—some of them philosophical—that I would like to put to the Secretary of State, but I simply do not have time.
Let me address one point that was touched on earlier. It is possible to share people's objectives while disagreeing totally with their means of attaining those objectives. I share the Secretary of State's objective, and the objective of the House, which is to end terrorism, to oppose it and to ensure that it never succeeds; but I disagree with the means.
Let me make an analogy. I want Irish unity, and the IRA shares—or would claim to share—that objective, but I disagree absolutely and fundamentally with the means that the IRA espouses. I have made the point to the IRA—and I repeat it now—that the means often debases the objective. It damages, as the IRA has damaged, the whole concept of Irish republicanism in a way in which unionism could never damage it—in a way in which no British Government through the centuries could ever have damaged it. Singlehandedly, through its means, the IRA has diminished a legitimate political philosophy, and put it into the gutter.
I make that point because I believe that the validity of being able to separate means from ends is central to the debate, for two reasons. I am speaking personally now. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and I had to make a choice today: we could be at Castle buildings for the—I hope—temporary demise of the all-party talks, or we could be here debating the PTA. We knew that, whichever alternative we chose, or our party chose for us, would be depressing, and indeed this is depressing.
Let me tell the Government and the Secretary of State, however, that I must retain two things, as must the people I represent. One is faith in the political process—the belief that it can and will solve the problem. The other is my faith, and that of those I represent, in the integrity of the law and the system of justice. The system of justice in this country will outlast both the IRA and the PTA, but we must see that damage is not done to it while these events are taking place. I think that there is enough evidence in the courts, the prisons and elsewhere to reveal the potential for damage to the political process.
If I cannot retain faith in those two things, what have I left to believe in? That is why I will vote against the Act tonight. The only weapon at my disposal is my use of my vote. To attack the use of a vote on an issue as important as this is to go to the very heart of the political process. We should all remember that. There will always be differences of opinion in the House, among parties and even within them. That is the essence of politics. The only method, the only weapon, we have is the use of our votes, and I will use mine on this matter.
I spoke of the integrity of the system of justice. I have some broad points for the Home Secretary. One relates to Miss McAliskey, who is in prison in London. Respect for the dignity of the human being is at the heart of our system of justice. For a woman seven months pregnant to be strip-searched almost 60 times while on remand—not found guilty of anything—must be an affront to human

dignity. I put it to him that respect for the dignity of the human being, especially for a woman who is carrying the precious gift of life in her body, should be the overriding factor in his consideration.
It was sad to see the Minister responsible for prisons on television in Northern Ireland showing not the slightest iota of compassion, respect for womanhood or respect for motherhood, given the position that the Minister takes on the issue. Those 90 seconds did untold damage, because respect for human dignity was forgotten.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that his time is short. However, he cannot have it two ways. He cannot say, "Respect me for how I cast my vote," and then say that we have to apply different criteria when we judge the case of someone whose extradition has been requested by another country in connection with a serious crime that had nothing to do with respect for life.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I am not asking for respect for me casting my vote. I care for only one respect: my self-respect. I am talking about respect for the dignity of a human being. That must be at the heart of the justice system of this country or of any other. I make a plea to the Home Secretary on that count to act, and act quickly, in this case.

Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mental torture that this woman is undergoing in not knowing whether she will able to have and hold her child after her confinement is a form of torture that only a pregnant woman in prison can suffer? Instead of endless committees, we must have a precise and direct statement that, after her confinement, the mother will keep the child.

Mr. Allason: She should have thought of that before she started bombing people.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. His point stands on its own.

Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I distinctly heard a Minister say, "She should have thought of that before she started bombing people." There has been a previous instance of a case having to be dropped because of statements by Ministers.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members should not comment on such cases. I heard nothing. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will continue.

Mr. Mallon: I plead with the Home Secretary, on a purely humanitarian basis, to consider as a matter of urgency the transfer of prisoners back to Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. I know how it is, from my privileged position, to get from County Armagh to, for example, Full Sutton prison. I know the difficulties and how long the journey takes.

Mr. Allason: Ten minutes.

Mr. Mallon: It is not 10 minutes: it is a whole day.
For prisoners to serve their time in the north of Ireland would not affect their sentences or the justice that is being done. It creates an humanitarian context within which they



can serve their sentences. After all, it is a basic tenet that a loss of freedom is what people are sentenced to when they are sentenced to prison. That is sufficient, without adding to it.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone referred to an incident in my constituency, the murders at Kingsmills. I will never forget going to those funerals, or the sound of my feet walking through the streets in Bessbrook, because it was not easy for a Catholic nationalist representative to attend. A couple of weeks ago, but 21 years later, I heard the same sound of my own footsteps in the dark of night in Bessbrook, the night that the young soldier Stephen Restorick was killed.
In those 21 years, those who are committed to the view that we can solve our problems by violence and punitive means have learnt nothing. Surely it is the business of the political process, of which all hon. Members are part, to consider the problem without being tied ideologically to an approach that has not been very successful.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that such an approach was an antibiotic that can be used repeatedly until the problem is solved. If only it were as easy as that. The system becomes immune to antibiotics; after a while, they have to be replaced. The time is right to replace the present approach to solving the problem. That does not mean making any concessions to the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association or anyone else.

Mr. Rupert Allason: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) alleged that a Minister had said of Roisin McAliskey, "She should have thought of that before she started bombing people." I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) making that comment. At the outset of his brief remarks, he should have either the courage to confirm that that is his view, or the grace to withdraw the allegation.

Madam Speaker: I heard no such comment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) could make it clear whether he said that.

Mr. Allason: I certainly made that comment, Madam Speaker. If you want me to withdraw it, I am happy to be guided by you.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is withdrawing the comment. He should understand that he should not comment on such cases.

Mr. Allason: Terrorism is murderous extortion for political purposes. It is as old as danegeld. Danegeld tells us that, if we start giving in to terrorism, we will be left with it for a long time. Terrorism, as we understand it in Britain, dates back in modern times to the Leila Khaled case, when a British Overseas Airways Corporation aeroplane was held hostage. Unfortunately, the British Government gave in to the terrorists, and Leila Khaled was released to safeguard British lives. As a direct

consequence of the willingness of our European partners to do deals with terrorists, we and the west in general have had to endure terrorism.
The only weapon against terrorism is absolute resolution. That resolution was shown during the hunger strikes and at the Iranian embassy seige. The people responsible for fighting terrorism in Britain have three objectives. First, they are anxious to prevent and deter people from fighting their turf wars on this territory. That does not necessarily include the Provisional IRA. The Algerians have been using the United Kingdom as a base, and Sikh separatists have certainly been doing the same. There was a Saudi bomb a short time ago. The most recent terrorist convictions were of two Palestinian bombers.
The second objective of the people to whom we give the responsibility of fighting terrorism is to prosecute and bring good convictions of terrorists. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to my earlier intervention about the possible use in criminal trials in the United Kingdom of intercept evidence. Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the police, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service are now of the view that that would be a worthwhile weapon.
Of course one does not want to compromise the source, but, since the Interception of Communications Act 1986, most people have readily understood that particular weapon, which is a useful one. The people responsible for fighting terrorism are handicapped by not being able to use intercept evidence in court.
Thirdly, extradition is an essential part of the fight against terrorism. Fuller co-operation is required, not only from Britain—to make absolutely certain that Crown Prosecution Service papers are in order when they are served overseas—but from our European partners.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made a characteristically dire speech, using the royal "we" throughout, although he was alone on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The proposition that he appeared to make, that false confessions were made as a consequence of prolonged detention, was nonsense. The Bridgewater case had nothing whatever to do with prolonged detention. In the Judith Ward case—the only one I can think of which involved a false confession—she volunteered the confession before she was taken into detention.
I suggest that the Houses should give one final message to the terrorist—that all hon. Members on both sides of the House went through the same Lobby tonight. That is a message that will be understood, particularly by people in the Clinton Administration, who got an unpleasant shock when the Canary Wharf bomb went off, and it became clear that the ceasefire period had been used by the Provisionals to regroup.
We must show resolution. That is the only thing that terrorists—whatever their origin, whatever their motives—understand. The House standing united this evening would send the best possible message to them.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: It would be best if the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) realised that he should say on his feet what he says from a sedentary position. I welcome his withdrawal of his earlier sedentary comment.


I am sure that the whole House identifies with the closing comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—that, whatever people's views on this issue, it is one of the basic democratic rights in the country and in the House that individuals have the right to vote as they choose. There was general agreement in the Chamber this evening with that view.
Since the IRA abandoned its 18-month ceasefire in February last year, people in Britain and Northern Ireland have once again been subjected to a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. The bombing at Canary Wharf shattered a thousand hopes and dreams, here, in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, and took the lives of two men. The appalling and sickening catalogue of atrocities committed by the IRA has continued throughout the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) outlined so clearly.
The same point was emphasised by the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham), who, as he said, made his maiden speech in the House in the presence of fewer people than were present this evening. I read his maiden speech while other hon. Members were speaking this evening. It was rather humorous, and he used rather more words than his predecessors in his family used, five of whom have been Members of Parliament. Among many people I meet in Northern Ireland, there is a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman and the work he did in Northern Ireland. I welcome the years of effort that he put in to try to bring peace and economic development to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Livingstone: While we condemn all acts of violence, does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem that undermines the campaign against violence is the insensitive way in which the Government have used the powers they have? Literally thousands of people coming through our ports have been criminalised. They feel humiliated by the way in which they are treated. We have heard this evening the appalling account of the way in which Roisin McAliskey is being treated. She has been strip-searched 60 times in little more than six weeks.

Ms Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says. He, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have written to the Home Secretary and to the Prison Service about Roisin McAliskey. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a difficult issue, but I am informed that the necessary medical services are being provided. In considering whether she and her baby should be allowed to be together, the health of the mother and child should be paramount. I am assured that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, agreed with me on that point.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is essential that Roisin McAliskey be told now exactly what the birth arrangements will be, who the birth partner can be, and where she will give birth?

Ms Mowlam: I am told that all the information on the birth partner is available, and has been printed in answer to parliamentary questions. I have answered sufficiently the first part of my hon. Friend's question.
My time has run out, so I shall make two or three points, and leave it to the Home Secretary to conclude the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn clearly outlined the two problems with the prevention of terrorism Act—exclusion, and detention for seven days without judicial review. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), adopting his usual approach, tried to consider the arguments on either side, and reason through our position. I welcome his open-mindedness.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) wanted the broadcasting restrictions reinstated. That view is not shared by the Labour Front-Bench team, but an open discussion of the issue was most welcome.
The debate has moved on. We have explained why we believe that there are flaws in the legislation, as I did in the debate on the emergency provisions Act last year. We have reassured the House that we will not vote to leave the people of Britain and Northern Ireland without the protection of anti-terrorist legislation. We have reinforced that in the position that we have adopted this evening.

Mr. Howard: With leave of the House, I should like to say a few words to pick up on the main themes that have emerged from the debate, and to respond in the short time I have to some of the points that have been made.
Of course we have heard a good deal about human rights and civil liberties. Of course it is true, and I do not deny it, that the prevention of terrorism Act contains some exceptional measures. It does so because those measures are needed to protect the safety of the citizens of this country. That is why the Act is on the statute book. That is why we believe that it should be renewed year after year, and that is why I attack those who are not prepared to come into the Lobby to support its renewal.
I am not suggesting that hon. Members are not entitled to register their votes in the House in whichever way they choose—whether it is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) or anyone else. They must accept, however, that the implication of their act should be pointed out to the people of the country. If it is the considered view of the police, the Security Service and the independent reviewer that the Act's measures are needed to protect the citizens of this country, we must have those measures in force.
I should like to be able to refer to all of those who contributed to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) gave us his swan song—his last political testament—in a distinguished speech. I should like to add my tribute to his work in Northern Ireland, and as Minister for Trade. His contribution to the country will be remembered long after he has left this place.
The Act has saved countless lives, yet the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, has never voted for it, not once in his time in the House. What clearer example could there be of his total lack of judgment and his lack of understanding of the need of our people for strong protection from the bomber and the gunman? What clearer example could there be of his total unfitness to be Prime Minister of the country?
The Government have consistently shown that we can be trusted to carry out duty to protect our people. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 13.

Division No. 89]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Douglas-Hamilton,


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Rt Hon Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Elletson, Harold


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)



Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishbum, Dudley


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Sir Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gale, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)



Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Sir Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chidgey, David
Hague, Rt Hon William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr. Keith


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David





Hendry, Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Sir Robert
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Norris, Steve


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith,
Rendel, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kynoch, George
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Sir Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Sir Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Maclennan, Robert
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maginnis, Ken
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trimble, David


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian






Tyler, Paul
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wallace, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Bowen Wells.


NOES


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Bennett, Andrew F
Mallon, Seamus


Canavan, Dennis
Mullin, Chris



Rooney, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam



Etherington, Bill
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Eddie McGrady and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. John McAllion.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that in the course of the last debate—I apologise for interrupting the one that will take place now—the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a comment for which he later apologised, in which he indicated that he felt that a prisoner at present in Holloway, Miss Roisin McAliskey, was guilty of the crime for which it is sought that she be extradited to Germany.
We have already had situations in the House under the British legal system where a similar type of statement was made when we were introducing the question of the reduction of the right to silence, and that resulted in the acquittal of prisoners by the Court of Appeal. We are now in the difficult position that, this statement having been made in the House, it will be read in the newspapers and may possibly affect the attitude of the magistrates in deciding whether that lady should be taken back to Germany or whether she should be granted bail. That is a very serious matter but, in addition, if she should be extradited to Germany, what will be the effect of a statement made in the House, withdrawn rather halfheartedly by the hon. Gentleman on your instruction, Madam Speaker? Will that prejudice her trial in Germany?
I believe that this matter is something about which you, Madam Speaker, might like to think and return to the House with a statement, because it is very serious.

Madam Speaker: As the House is aware, I did not hear the alleged comment made from a sedentary position, but I am of course aware that when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) got to his feet to speak tonight, he did withdraw whatever comment he had made at that time. It seems to me to be the old issue of moderation in language in this House, which I caution all hon. Members to be careful about.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seriously, but I do not wish to come back to the House about it; I think enough has been said. I hope that all hon. Members will take heed of what I say, particularly the hon. Member for Torbay, who knows very well that he should not have made those comments from a sedentary position. He withdrew them later, but it is too late then. There should be moderation in speech in this House, especially on the serious issues that we are debating this evening.

Mr. Maginnis: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Like you, I did not hear the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) make those comments, and they would not have appeared in Hansard or had any publicity if those who are most at folly in inviting members of the IRA into the House had not raised the issue in the way that they did. Am I not right in suggesting that it was quite improper for an hon. Member to raise such a sensitive matter in that manner when he could have gone to you privately and raised the issue?

Madam Speaker: We must now move on to the next debate on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As I was the Member who raised this matter with you a few minutes ago, may I now ask the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) to withdraw the allegation that I at any time have invited the IRA to this place or to any other place? May I, while I am on my feet, say that I visited Holloway yesterday and met Roisin McAliskey—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order for me to deal with at all, and I am not going to have the debate which has just come to a close extended in this way. We now have a motion on Northern Ireland before us, and I call Sir John Wheeler to move it.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you not going to request the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to withdraw the allegation clearly made against me that I at any time have invited the IRA anywhere?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair since half-past 6, I have had a number of points of order and I am going to leave it at that and ask Sir John Wheeler to move the motion.

Northern Ireland Appropriation

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £122 million in the 1996–97 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland to departmental services to £6,560 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £2,941 million for 1997–98. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1997–98 main estimates are brought before the House later this year.
I remind the House that the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services. Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account, which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office.
I now turn to the estimates. Some of the votes seek token increases only because new pressures have been offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. To give hon. Members the maximum time, I shall refer only to the main areas where supplementary provision is sought.
In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a net increase of some £0.6 million is required. About £0.3 million is required for national back-up aid to EU fishing projects, £0.1 million is for the payment of grants for the decommissioning of nephrops fishing vessels, some £0.3 million is to fund additional commitments under the farm and conservation grants scheme, and £0.2 million is required to meet ex gratia compensation payments to sheep and suckler cow producers who were disadvantaged owing to a misinterpretation of EU quota regulations. These increases are partially offset by projected savings in other areas.
In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £6.3 million is sought. This includes £.3.7 million for payments made from the civil contingencies fund for the 24 to 30-months bull slaughter scheme and for increased expenditure to compensate for outbreaks of animal diseases of various kinds. An increase of some £1.4 million represents the carry forward of running cost underspends from 1995–96, while £1.1 million is for health and safety work. Increased expenditure in the vote is partially offset by a net increase in receipts of £0.9 million.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development, where token increases of £1,000 are sought in all three votes. In vote 1, some £2.6 million is required by the Industrial Development Board for site acquisition, development and building works at Springvale in west Belfast. Two million pounds is sought to meet increased claims for marketing grant support and legal costs, while a further £2 million is required to meet contractual commitments in respect of aircraft sales financing and support for the shipbuilding industry. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In vote 2, the main element is receipts from the sale of shares in Northern Ireland Electricity plc and the residual associated costs. These costs are being met out of the dividend payments and the proceeds from the sale of the shares.
Finally within vote 3, an increase of £0.7 million is sought for capital expenditure on training facilities. Offsetting savings have been declared elsewhere in the vote, reducing the requirement to a token £1,000.
Turning to the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas, formerly the Office of Electricity Regulation for Northern Ireland, an increase of about £0.4 million is required. This increase is to cover expenditure by the director general of gas, a new statutory appointment, and is for consultancy costs incurred in the preparation of Ofreg's submission on NIE's price control to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I turn next to the Department of the Environment, where a net increase of £5.1 million is sought in vote 1. The main requirement of some £8 million is for roads maintenance and capital, while some £3.1 million is for additional compensation payments to Northern Ireland Railways. These increases are partially offset by additional receipts of £4.8 million and a reduction of £2.5 million in capital grants to Northern Ireland Railways.
In vote 2, covering housing, an increase of £10.5 million is sought. Some £7 million is to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, while £3.5 million is to provide private sector housing renovation grants. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is now expected to be about £608 million, an increase of £5 million over 1995–96.
In vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of some £2.5 million is sought. About £3.3 million is for operational and capital requirements. This is partially offset by additional receipts of £0.5 million, together with reduced privatisation costs of £0.2 million.
In vote 4, which covers environmental and other services, a net increase of £4.3 million is sought. Some £5 million is for regeneration-related matters, about £9 million represents the carry forward of running costs and underspends from 1995–96, and about £6 million is for capital works on accommodation. This increased expenditure is largely offset by additional receipts of £11.6 million and a reduction of £4 million in matching funding for the EU peace and reconciliation programme.
Turning to the Department of Education, a net increase of £5.8 million is sought in vote 1. This includes some £9.6 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, energy efficiency measures, rates revaluation, Irish-medium education, making good arson damage, the fitting of seat belts in school buses, and the cross-community contact scheme. Some £0.4 million is for integrated education, £1.3 million is for capital works at colleges of education, and £1.9 million is for student support. The increases are partially offset by savings elsewhere within the vote. Provision for further education incorporation is included in the estimates and in the vote on account for 1997–98.
In vote 2, an increase of some £5.5 million is sought for the teachers superannuation scheme.
I now turn to the Department of Health and Social Services, where a net increase of £50.6 million is sought in vote 1 for expenditure on hospital, community health,


personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. This includes £14.7 million carried forward from 1995–96 under the end-year flexibility scheme, £3.5 million for hospital emergency admissions and haemophilia costs, £3 million for the family health service, and £20 million to enable trusts to repay trust debt remuneration, together with transfers to and from DHSS vote 3, so as to realign provision following a reappraisal of functions within the department under a senior management review.
In vote 3, a token increase of £1,000 is sought for certain miscellaneous health and personal social services costs to reflect the corresponding senior management review transfers to and from DHSS vote 1, £0.8 million carried forward from 1995–96, and an additional £2.6 million in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme.
In vote 4, a net increase of £8.3 million is sought. This includes £11.5 million for running cost, capital and other administration pressures in the Department. These increases are partially offset by reductions elsewhere within the vote.
In vote 5, which covers social security administered by the Social Security Agency, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. This is mainly to realign provision between the individual benefits and to take account of increased appropriations in aid in respect of recoveries from the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, which finances expenditure on the contribution element of jobseeker's allowance.
In vote 6, which covers social security centrally administered by the Department of Health and Social Services, £10 million is sought. This is mainly due to increased expenditure on rent rebates and rent allowances, together with increased payments into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund in respect of the Treasury grant. These increases are partially offset by decreases in the independent living fund, social fund and rates rebates.
Finally, in the Department of Finance and Personnel's vote 2, an additional net amount of some £8.8 million is sought to cover superannuation and other allowances.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) will respond to the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): It might be helpful if I make it clear that the debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal subjects excluded.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection is that, last year, Madam Speaker gave that direction before we started the debate. I notice that the Minister departed only by omitting that from the text that he used to open the debate. That is a roundabout way of saying that the technicalities of the order follow a prescribed pattern.
I am sure that almost all hon. Members present caught some of what the Minister said, but we hope to tease out what the order means in terms of its practical effect on Northern Ireland. The debate is principally an opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to raise with the Minister and his colleagues matters that relate to the lives of their constituents, so I shall keep my remarks comparatively brief.
The background to the order was, in part, the public expenditure document released by the Secretary of State on 10 December; the appropriation applies to part of the sums therein.
Can the Minister tell us why public expenditure announcements for Northern Ireland must always go through the farce of a private notice question? Why cannot they just be published, instead of the pretence that, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is particularly interested in them, or that, the previous year, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was? Their enthusiasm is not in evidence now.
The Minister mentioned the European Union peace and reconciliation programme funding. Can his colleague confirm that that is in addition to Government provision, and will not be used to replace it?
The Government have, regrettably—I am sure that they regret it as much as anyone else—had to transfer £120 million to the security budget, as the Secretary of State made clear. I recognise your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to stray into matters of law and order. I do not question the need for the security services to receive all the support that they have a right to expect, but given that all the mainstream public services are under such pressure, can the Minister assure us that, consistent with the need to protect the security of our citizens, the security services are tested as rigorously as other services to ensure that public money is being spent to best effect and is not being wasted?
If matters turn out more optimistically than the Government have suggested in their projections for the next three years, what mechanisms are in place for returning money to the mainstream budgets? Can the Minister confirm that no spending commitments have been made to fund spending in the current year from the 1997–98 provision or from provision for subsequent years?
The Northern Ireland Audit Office revealed last year that £14 million had been spent on consultants of all kinds. Given the explosion of agentisation—that is the expression that the Department uses—that has taken place in Northern Ireland Departments over the past 12 months, what is the latest figure?
I shall deal with the Departments in the order in which they appear in the document, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The Minister mentioned the slaughter programme, which most people call the accelerated cull. Can he confirm that that has started? He referred to suckler cows. Does the figure include the provision that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined at the Dispatch Box on 17 February?
The BSE crisis has been deemed a national issue and most of the funds to support the programme have been found from elsewhere. I say that with great respect for the Minister. Why, then, is the fight against the only


systematic and prevalent terrorist campaign that exists in these islands not considered a national issue? Why must other budgets be used to combat terrorism?
Last week, the chairman of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland addressed the annual meeting in Belfast. I quote from a newspaper report:
Mr. Alan McClure told 400 business leaders and senior civil servants at the IOD's annual banquet at the Culloden Hotel, Belfast, last night, that such cuts sent 'the wrong message to the wrong people'.
He complained that underfunding was creating the worst crisis in two decades in the North's education system. Moreover, recent reductions in research and development grants to Queen's University and the University of Ulster 'threatened inward investment and the competitiveness of Northern Ireland companies'.
'Cutting education and training budgets, almost by definition, hits those at the bottom of the educational totem pole. But it does something else. It reinforces a sense of isolation, of failure and lack of self-worth,' he said.
'It confirms to many youngsters that the paramilitaries may offer more than they can'.
If that was not damaging enough, Mr. McClure went on to speak about the Government's attitude to economic and monetary union, but I shall not burden the Minister with that.
The order is bad news for the Department of Economic Development. There are to be cuts of £73 million from the training budget, with the action for community employment—ACE—programme again suffering. One almost has a sense of déjà vu. This time last year, the ACE programme was facing cuts of 25 per cent. and 2,000 job losses. I do not understand what the Government have against the programme. This year there is the justification that money is being transferred for other purposes. Last year the Government did not have that justification, but they still imposed harsh cuts.
Although the public expenditure document refers to substantial resources for training, those references are disingenuous, as they mask substantial cuts. There is considerable concern and anger at the decision to close the Dundonald training centre, which will leave a large part of the East Belfast, Castlereagh, North Down and Ards area with no specialised training for the long-term unemployed in particular. Will Ministers ask officials in the Training and Employment Agency to review the proposed closure in the light of all the representations that have been made locally, especially as no consultation was undertaken before the decision was announced?
The community work programme, which has been used in part to supplement the losses of the ACE programme, is not seen as an adequate replacement. We shall be interested to see the two-year review that is due in the near future. That will confirm most people's reservations. Increases to the Industrial Development Board budget, welcome though they are, will be wasted if they are more than offset by the fact that the skilled workers needed to foster investment and growth in Northern Ireland are not available because of cuts further down the training chain.
On the environment, the regional rate needs to be set about now, if it has not been done already. When might that be done? In the light of the re-rating of commercial properties that has just been undertaken, will the Minister give us details of the transitional grant assistance for that? From which budget will it be drawn?
The Minister mentioned increased subsidies, or increased assistance, to Northern Ireland Railways. Will he make it clear whether that includes the shortfall that

has been identified in the upgrading of the link between Belfast and Dublin, or whether that will come from a separate source?
Housing has also taken a firm hit in the order, particularly at a time of growing waiting lists and growing homelessness. I know that the Minister resisted that view in Northern Ireland questions a couple of months ago, but those are the facts. What is the Secretary of State implying when he says in the public expenditure statement:
I see significant opportunities in the future however for the private sector to increase its role in meeting the Province's house building needs especially through Housing Associations in the context of the recent Housing Review"?
The Minister has referred to the housing review, but what will that actually translate into and how might that go at least some way to offsetting the sharp reduction in public investment that the order portends?
There is, I suppose, a little good news in education provision, at least for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place at the moment, because I distinctly remember him making an impassioned plea on behalf of Belmont primary school last year. I notice that that has gone into the capital programme, so that is to be welcomed, but in his statement the Secretary of State mentions that the plans to advance nursery vouchers will not now be proceeded with. I have a letter from the Minister of State, who was kind enough to write to me after this debate last year, in which he set out the Government's plans to proceed with nursery vouchers this year. He wrote:
The implementation of the Scheme in Northern Ireland will require a certain amount of tailoring to take account of the distinctive features of the education system here. Officials in my Department have been working on proposals and I hope soon, in line with my previous public commitment, to launch a document for consultation which will set out how the Scheme might relate to Northern Ireland.
Given the fact that the scheme is not now to be introduced, will the Minister give some indication of how much time and effort was wasted on that particular extravagance?

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the pre-school lobby was in Parliament last week, those who were there representing Northern Ireland were pressing for the voucher scheme to be extended to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Dowd: I accept that entirely. It merely underlines my point that there are mixed views on the scheme's value. I too have heard people from all parts of Northern Ireland saying that they would welcome the voucher system, but the fact that people's expectations have been built up, only to be dashed, shows the Government's conduct in this matter. Whichever way we look at it, the Government have clearly wasted their time and money pursuing their policy, and disappointed people as a result.
The proposed education spending implies some increase, but that implication is not what is happening on the ground, certainly in relation to the school meals service, the school transport service, curriculum advisory support, the library service, the youth service and discretionary awards. On all of those, boards are making considerable cuts.
Even the objective of protecting the schools budget is not what it might seem. I have a copy of a letter from the South Eastern education and library board to the chairman of all the schools in its area. I think it would be instructive if I read just a couple of paragraphs to the House.
Dear Chairman
As you are aware the Board has encountered great difficulty in meeting its financial commitments in the 1996–97 financial year, and it is indebted to Governors and Schools for the efforts which they are making to keep expenditure to a minimum. The Department of Education has made available additional resources on a loan basis in the 1996–97 financial year, with repayment required in the 1997–98 and in 1998–99 financial years.
The implications for your school are reflected in the revised projected position at 31 March 1997 and the projected position at 31 March 1998. You will also be aware that because of the tight financial constraints which all schools and services are experiencing, the Board has very limited flexibility which would allow schools to carry deficits at the end of the financial year.
The letter goes on to give details of the local management of schools formula budget for 1997–98 and then in two chunks takes 10 per cent. of it away for the repayment of loans. Will the Minister explain why not just the capital, but the revenue, budget seems to be run on borrowed money? How many further examples are there of commitments made this year, particularly in the health sector, where various loans have been forthcoming, and what will the impact of those repayments be further down the track?
On health, we had an excellent debate this morning, for which we are grateful to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs)—who is not here at the moment. I shall not repeat much of what we went through then, other than to say that the Government's reforms and the internal market in the national health service continue to absorb into administration money that would be far better spent on patient care. The public expenditure document mentions, yet again, the state of the prescribed drugs budgets and the efforts to try to reduce them—but that is now an almost permanent feature of expenditure documents. Will the Minister give some indication of what progress is being made to reduce the prescribing budgets, particularly as, in the Eastern board in particular, general practitioners have put forward various schemes which I believe he has accepted at least in part to try to control that expenditure?
The Secretary of State concludes the public expenditure document by saying:
Northern Ireland has to regain the path that leads towards lasting peace, stability and growth".
We echo that without reservation, not simply for the effect that it would have on public spending—even though the Government's attitude towards that seems to be somewhat selective—but because it would be of unremitting benefit to every citizen in Northern Ireland.

Sir James Molyneaux: I begin, alphabetically, with the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. I have seized on one little phrase: "certain alternative land uses". Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that it gained currency as part of the Jopling reforms mark one, when the then Minister returned from Brussels with a directive from our betters in the superior Parliament exhorting farmers to stop

producing beef, milk, cereals or anything else and, whatever the cost, find another use for their land—but not produce anything if they could help it. For some reason, fortunately, that never caught on in Northern Ireland, perhaps because a different planning theology has taken root over there and it was never really enforced.
If people had a look around Northern Ireland, they would find land for which an alternative use could be found. I think of Ministry of Defence property and disused airfields. The Minister of State will know that there is some land at Maghaberry prison on which I have my eye, not for personal property, but for the worthy cause of providing recreation facilities in that rapidly growing village.
Vote 2 mentions scientific and veterinary services. After the BSE scare—I use the word scare deliberately—we owe much to the veterinary services in Northern Ireland for placing Northern Ireland beef at the head of the queue waiting for the ban to be lifted. Our case rests not on geographical or political considerations but on the uniquely high standard of animal health in Northern Ireland and on our ability to trace every animal.
I say with very great regret that I trust that there is no foundation to reports that some ill-disposed people in the Scottish Office are grubbing around to see if they can find what they call a chink in Northern Ireland's armour, which presumably would enable them to sabotage the case for Ulster beef. I will not go more deeply into that subject now, but I know that our veterinary services will continue to serve Northern Ireland's agricultural activities and their customers.
I have no doubt that the news industry is becoming bored with BSE, or that it will come up with a new scare before the general election. I have been proved wrong in my forecast that lettuce leaves would be the next victim of a scare, as it appears that spring water from our own garden wells will be the next scare—and yet another example of poisoning someone's well. I merely give warning to be prepared for it, but be of good cheer, because—like all the other scares, fashions and gimmicks of the news industry—it will die a death in time, if people do not resuscitate it.

Mr. William Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Department got it wrong, once again, on the veterinary laboratory at Omagh? It eventually had to reverse its very foolish decision. Does that not prove the great value that the veterinary service provides in detecting animal problems in Northern Ireland? Does it not also prove that the man from the Ministry very often gets it wrong?

Sir James Molyneaux: Yes, that example is adequate testimonial to the efficiency of all who served in that centre and in other such establishments in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend was far too modest to claim that the reversal of that decision was in some ways a tribute to all the genuine political parties in Northern Ireland which came together, not for the first time, to make their presence felt. Their advice was taken by those in authority. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary did not entirely disagree with the advice that we were giving—although I will not embarrass them by asking them to confirm or deny that.
I suppose that the situation with the purity of water puts us on a par with sunny Spain, which deplores the quality of drinking water in the European Community. It claims


that water in Europe is not drinkable and that much needs to be done to restore it, so that it can be safely drunk and all the rest of it, but the Spanish forget that, on disembarking from an aircraft anywhere in Spanish territory, one is warned within an inch of one's life to drink nothing but bottled water, which is imported from France. A wee bit of educational activity is needed there, even if it does offend our Spanish colleagues in the great European Union, as we now call it.
The second Department listed in the schedule is the Department of Economic Development. I am not one of those whose standard practice is to withhold credit from the Government and from Departments when credit is due, so I have no hesitation in saying that this month's report from the PA Consulting Group projects 3 per cent. growth in employment in the next 12 months. That growth comes on top of steady job increases over the past two years. I do not believe that all of that could have been achieved had it not been for the drive, energy and determination of Lady Denton, who—despite the extreme pressure of coping with her other Department, the Department of Agriculture, in the crisis year of BSE—has projected Ulster industry on to the world map. I trust that we can all resolve to support her in any further initiatives in that regard.
Vote 2 mentions energy efficiency, which reminds me that we all have a role to play in promoting that theme, particularly in the construction industry. I could never comprehend why we should continue to indulge ourselves by building buildings with glass walls, which surely must cost a fortune to heat in winter and cool in summer. I have yet to find an architect who can explain the reasoning behind building such structures. Right hon. and hon. Members have wide scope to make some progress in the matter by persuading the Treasury to reduce the 17.5 per cent. VAT rate on conservation materials, or by persuading the Treasury at least to reduce it to the 8 per cent. rate that applies to heating fuel.
On vote 3, if money should become available or savings made in the Department of Economic Development, I hope that the action for community employment scheme and other training schemes will benefit and be reinstated. In my humble opinion, savings could be made through greater co-operation by the planning authorities. Protection of the environment is a noble objective—fair enough—but not if it is achieved at the expense of delaying applications from industry or if it causes wasteful expenditure on electricity links which subsequently increase the cost of electricity.
The Under-Secretary is doing a good job in the Department of the Environment, but there is great disappointment because the Belfast-Larne road scheme has slipped back further in the schedule. It is the most important road link and it is the link to Europe—as the European Union realises. Surely a special case can be made in asking Brussels to give back at least some of our own money, to which we are entitled, as Europe has declared a particular interest in that project. A case could be made for new roads and new bypasses elsewhere, but we must get it clear in our minds that Larne is the one external link and the one external route to which all the others must take second place in the queue. I say that as a representative of Lisburn.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) mentioned the expenditure under votes 2 and 3 on housing, water and related services. I am afraid that that

£11million has not been wisely or sensibly spent. The Environment Minister knows that I pleaded for a commonsense approach to housing in, for example, the village of Glenavy. We failed to halt the fivefold expansion in new build in that village, which occurred years before provision of the services listed in votes 2 and 3—sewerage, water, electricity and schools.
It would be indelicate to describe the appalling risk posed to public health during the past two summers because the advice offered by the Minister and me was ignored and almost treated with derision. People said, "It can't happen; it won't happen. The services will all be in place before the houses are built," but they were wrong—those services are still not in place. I ask for a little more co-ordination between the authorities and rather less arrogance in such cases.
Most of us have had a fair bit of advice in recent days about what must be done in education. Most of that advice centres on increased expenditure. Many of us would like that, but the reality is that it will not happen. We may have to settle for a revamp and a re-examination of each education board's expenditure projects. As I understand it, nearly all of them are in deficit, so they would be unlikely to splash new money around even if they got it.
There is a case for taking another look at the bodies that are not really at the core of education. Those auxiliary bodies are no doubt very worthy, but there are 19 of them. They are not teachers and do not claim to be. Teachers are the vital element in education. Teachers and the environment in which they work—the schools—must have priority over all the other well-meaning bodies. I am not suggesting that those other bodies should be set aside, simply that they should consider the possibility of finding other sources of funding.
It is astonishing how many self-appointed bodies are sloshing around in money from all manner of sources. I fear that there will be a day of reckoning eventually but, for the moment, a bit of co-ordination would be helpful for those 19 bodies in what the Minister referred to recently as the protected funding group—those with ring-fenced funding. Surely they should have some share, or at least set about endeavouring to obtain some share, of the money that comes from sources other than the Treasury. If that cannot be achieved, we shall have to admit that the boards will be driven to the painful choice of cutting some of services that are not quite in the group of 19, but are neither compulsory nor statutory. Many of them could be made self-financing. Tough decisions must be made, because a general election will change nothing.
Department of Health and Social Services vote 1 contains a staggering sum. The only certainty is that demand will grow remorselessly. This morning, my hon. Friends dealt fully with the subjects of votes 1 to 6. The first is of special interest to me, given my involvement in that area in my earlier years, until my second demobilisation in 1973, which was caused by reforms brought in by a Stormont Government. My first demobilisation was in 1946, when the Royal Air Force decided that it might be able to manage without me. I am now within I do not know how many days of my third and final demobilisation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Temporarily.

Sir James Molyneaux: I do not believe in reincarnation.
Vote 1 deals with community health and personal and social services. On the basis of my experience, I believe that the best of the trusts have transformed the service to patients to an incredible extent. I pay that general tribute to the trusts, and specifically to the handful of the best of them. Others have not quite measured up to their standard.
That implies competition. Will the Minister confirm that the non-recurrent funding made available to the Belfast hospitals outside the contracting process will cease on 31 March 1997? What actions have been taken to reshape the hospitals so that I can reassure my constituents that any potential penalty for them will cease? In his review of the capitation allocation, will the Minister take account of the fact that the population of our Eastern board area is expanding so rapidly that even a period of 12 months can render any calculations inaccurate?
In case this should be my last speech in the House, I should like to finish with a word of caution. For the foreseeable future, there will be no crock at the end of the rainbow.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There are many matters of great concern to the people of Northern Ireland at the moment. One of the greatest is the swingeing cut in education funding. There is no doubt that teachers, parents, children and those employed in education in the Province are gravely concerned about what will happen in our schools.
Hon. Members present will be aware that in his public statement on 10 December, the Secretary of State announced that the savings in the law and order budget released as a result of the cessation of violence would have to be restored in view of the IRA's abandonment of its ceasefire. There will be a tremendous cut in the education budget.
I should like the Minister to explain that cut to us. I understand that when security is being discussed at Budget time, an amount is allocated for the whole United Kingdom. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that the Treasury and the Ministers have had two bites at the cherry. We do not see any cut in education in Manchester or the Canary Wharf area of this city, but we see it in Northern Ireland. Of all the people who might suffer, surely it should not be the children in their education prospects and their need for education and training. That goes to the heart of the people of Northern Ireland.
The implication is that there will be an additional £77 million over the next three years for the police authority and an additional £42 million for the Compensation Agency, making a total of £119 million—an increase of £36 million to the police authority over the previous year. The cuts will affect education seriously. Many hon. Members from Northern Ireland will have particular interests to put to the House. I am interested in the south-eastern area.
I have a note from the Northern Ireland Teachers Council that the number of teacher redundancies—not full retirements—will be more than 200. Taking more than 200 teachers out of the schools in that area will leave a gap in the ability of the schools to manage the education

of the children under their care. The number of ancillary redundancies is not fully determined, but it will be 50 plus. It is estimated that there will be 10 headquarters redundancies, but the figure has not yet been finalised. When the figures are adjusted for inflation, expenditure on meals will be cut by 8.4 per cent., spending on colleges and secondary schools by 14.51 per cent., libraries by 15.3 per cent., youth services by 7.62 per cent., and discretionary awards by 14.25 per cent. They are large and serious cuts that will have an enormous effect upon children's schooling in Northern Ireland.
My two parliamentary colleagues and I met the Minister yesterday. He said that he could not tell us what the full impact of the cuts would be. We asked how many teachers would lose their positions—the teachers' unions estimate that as many as 500 might be affected—but the Minister could not provide an answer. There will be a serious crisis. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) said, an unusual thing happened at the annual meeting of the directors' board, when its chairman made a long speech about the cuts and the effect that they would have.
The overall allocation for education, arts and libraries in the next three years will be £1,376 million in 1997–98, £1,380 million in 1998–99, and £1,400 million in 1999–2000. Those allocations reflect adversely on education provision to the millennium as they represent funding increases of approximately 0.3 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. in the next two years. That is much less than the current and anticipated rates of inflation over the next three years. Therefore, we shall gain nothing from the alleged increases.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to teacher redundancies. Did he notice that £50 million has been allocated to cover redundancies? Whatever the figure may be, it is a waste of money to make good teachers redundant and lose their skills.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House and the Government must realise the seriousness of the situation, which is causing grave concern. According to the Department of Education, the Government's financial allocation to education in 1997–98 is 2 per cent. higher than that for 1996–97, which represents an increase of about £30 million in monetary terms.
The Department of Education must get to grips with the likely impact of the cuts. In all fairness to the Minister, he admitted that the cuts were serious and he recognised that schools would face financial hardship. However, I do not think that the Government have fully recognised that the reductions will create difficulties that cannot be solved. Children will suffer now and for the rest of their lives because they will not be educated adequately. That problem will not be solved in five or six years, and it concerns everyone in Northern Ireland.
The extent of the cuts imposed by Government was clearly illustrated on 25 February when the Education Minister announced a new capital building programme for schools throughout Northern Ireland. Opposition Front Benchers spoke about Dundonald and my colleague's delight at what had happened there. However, the overall figure is not encouraging. Schools throughout Northern Ireland will receive £23 million, which is in sharp contrast


to the trend of the past two years when capital programmes totalling £111 million were announced. If one compares those figures, one will see exactly what is happening.
All Northern Ireland Members complain that schools in their areas have Portakabin classrooms, some of which are not watertight. In many schools, the toilet facilities are outside the cabins so the children must walk from one Portakabin to another in adverse weather conditions. Yet capital expenditure has been cut.
I regret the fact that the Minister initially refused to meet with the Northern Ireland Teachers Council. I do not think that Ministers should adopt that attitude with anyone. He argued that he wanted to meet the politicians first, but he did not tell that to the council. He should have explained that he wanted to meet the elected representatives first. I am glad that a meeting is planned for next week, but the Minister's actions caused bitterness among those people who have a legitimate grievance. Parents want to see something done about this problem.
The Government are abdicating their responsibility in this area. The Government are responsible for providing free education for all pupils of statutory school age, but they will not be able to achieve that aim in Northern Ireland. Some £120 million in public sector funding will be diverted to the security budget over the next three years. Many people believe that that is immoral, obscene and reprehensible; they believe that the Government are making the children of Northern Ireland the scapegoats for a security problem for which they are not responsible and which they did not create.
I know that I must tread carefully, but that is what the Government have said. They claim that the cuts are caused by the security situation. That situation is commonly known as Drumcree, but it should be known as Garvaghy road, because that is where the trouble was. Last night, Gerry Adams told us that the IRA had been scheming and planning its actions for three years. The events were not caused by Orangemen wanting to walk home from church or wanting to go to their place of worship at Dunloy in my constituency, at Bellaghy in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), or elsewhere in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). It was a planned, concerted and orchestrated action on the part of the IRA.
I know that I am very much on the borders of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I prefer union to borders. I want to retain union with the United Kingdom, but I support borders between us and the Irish Republic.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not a fact that a fair proportion of the education budget has gone to funding the Gaelic Athletic Association halls where Sinn Fein concocted many of its plans over the past three years?

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is absolutely right. However, I shall not transgress any further as I must make some progress.
I think that the House should consider seriously what is happening in our Province. As I said at the talks today, I would like the people who pointed the finger in the summer at the Orangemen and the Protestant population to withdraw their statement and to put the blame where it is rightly deserved.
I trust that the Minister will tell us how he will handle the situation, given the loss of 500 of the best teachers. How big will classes be, if 500 teachers are to be taken out of the education system? I am concerned that smaller classes will not be retained. There will also be a reduction in the number of temporary teachers to cover teachers who are absent on sick leave. What will happen when teachers get sick? Will there be no replacement, and will two classes have to be put together? We are told that there is no money, so what can we do?
I trust that the Government will reconsider this matter. Those cuts will lower the morale of teachers in schools, will lower the morale of pupils who attend schools and will lower the morale of parents who send their children to those schools. I must place on record the profound abhorrence in Northern Ireland about the position in our schools. Many experienced teachers will opt for premature retirement or redundancy to save the job of a young colleague. Those people have given their lives to teaching, but they cannot finish at a pensionable age because they want their younger colleagues at least to have the opportunity to earn money to sustain themselves.
The Government must realise that the position is very serious, and they must do something about it. The Northern Ireland Teachers Council has said in blunt, unequivocal terms that
education is facing a crisis in Northern Ireland of such proportions that has never been witnessed before".
Its only hope is that the House of Commons will be able to pressurise the Government, so that they take this properly on board and do not just dismiss it and say, "We are very sorry, but this is the way it is going to be." I expect something from the Minister, and so do the people of Northern Ireland. The children have a right to expect a response. It is our right, and I trust that we will not be fobbed off by the Minister, and that he will give us a full statement.
I am deeply concerned about the roads programme. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) about the serious situation at Larne. I was at a meeting some years ago and was amazed to learn that Larne harbour was not marked on main European maps, yet at that time it was one of the largest ports in the United Kingdom. That has been put on the long finger. It took the Prime Minister to come to the centre of my constituency before the dualling of the A26 commenced. It took us 16 years to get that started. It has now started, but in the middle of it we were told that stage 3 has been put off. It may be six, seven or eight years before that work recommences. On the one hand we got encouragement, and with the next we got a smack in the teeth.
Hon. Members should look at the schedule of schemes deferred from the programme that was announced in February 1966. It lists schemes at Omagh, Antrim-Ballymena, Limavady, Limavady, Limavady, Limavady, Strand road, Windyhall, Comber, Garvaghy, Northway Portadown, Leckpatrick and the Toome bypass. They were all promised, were all on the list and were all postponed. That is a very serious matter indeed.
I received a letter from the chancellor of Queen's university, and from the chancellor of the university of Ulster. Both of them are frightfully concerned about


research budget cuts. That is a serious problem for our industry, because those universities make a valuable contribution to the present and future development of industry in the Province. The chancellor of Queen's university refers to
the serious damage which will be done to Northern Ireland universities, and to the economy and Province generally, resulting from the 1996 Public Expenditure plans announced by the Secretary of State in December 1996. In his announcement he indicated that research funding for the two Northern Ireland universities is to suffer swingeing cuts of £4m (16 per cent.) from April 1997, increasing to £6m (24 per cent.) per annum from 1998. By contrast, the University system in England and Wales received additional funds.
Why was that? Why is there discrimination against the two universities in Northern Ireland?
The chancellor goes on to say that
research is essential to wealth creation
research is essential to high quality teaching in our universities;
research expenditure benefits the economy in a wide variety of ways, including the creation of jobs and provision of well-trained graduates for the work force;
research facilities and personnel provide support advice for local companies, organisations and professions;
research expertise and graduate availability helps to attract high technology inward investment;
research helps to promote economic growth;
research helps the voluntary sector;
research gives rise to spin-off companies"—
and he lists them—
research helps to improve health and health care;
research helps the professions and public bodies; and
research helps to improve the environment.
All those vital contributions that flow from research in our universities will be subject to swingeing cuts.
The Minister says that we need inward investment. The first question that companies coming to Northern Ireland ask is what research facilities are available in the universities. We have to tell them that we are sorry, but we cannot help.
I have been asked to raise the issue of Banbridge hospital. I lend my support to the hon. Members who represent the Armagh area that includes Banbridge. I give my backing to the demands of the action group. The closure of Banbridge hospital is a running sore. I do not understand why the Prime Minister, when approached by an across-the-board deputation of Members from Northern Ireland, said that he could not see his way to talking to them. I understand that there is to be an all-party deputation, which will include hon. Members from all parties in the House. I hope that what was not given to the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will be given to those hon. Members representing both sides of the House who want to discuss this issue, because that would be good.
I must give some thanks to the Department. Like the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, I am always prepared to say thank you for what we get. I am glad that the flood wall scheme has been carried out at the Toome road in my constituency. We have had a problem there for the past 30 or 40 years and I am glad that the scheme is now almost complete. The people in that area can go to their beds at night knowing that no matter the weather,

they will not be flooded. I do not know how many times during my 27 years as the Member of Parliament for that area, I have had to rescue furniture as it floated round the homes of my constituents. That has happened over and over again. I must put on record my gratitude for the fact that the money has been found to resolve a problem that has brought fear into the hearts of people during adverse weather conditions in the winter.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: At the start of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you warned us not to transgress into the funding for law and order and the Northern Ireland Office. It is ironic that it is the transfer of funds from the budgets of other Departments that is the cause of some of the most serious complaints by Northern Ireland Members about the real cuts being made, particularly in education and health.
On behalf of those we represent, we all regret that the cost of the collapse of the ceasefire, the Orange demonstrations and the blockage of the roads throughout Northern Ireland in the first week of July last year, which cost £17 million alone, is part of the £120 million being transferred out of what I might call the personal services for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has dealt well and in great detail with the problem affecting education provision for our children. I make no excuse for re-emphasising what he said, and confirming that the best estimate available to us is that 400 to 500 teachers will be made redundant. In a community of 1.5 million people, that will have a serious impact on the education of our children.
We all know that education cannot be switched on and off, or be provided one year and not the next. Our children and students are entitled to the same treatment, facilities and opportunities as those anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The cuts that have been imposed will, in my opinion and in the opinion of the best educationists in Northern Ireland, dictate that we will not have those facilities for our children and teachers.
The hon. Member for North Antrim, whom I shall quote considerably, has already said that the mature and experienced teachers are taking early redundancies and sacrificing the remnants of their professional career, on behalf of the younger members of the teaching fraternity. We are losing the best and most experienced teachers for the sake of the younger teachers with families. That is a great tragedy.
The pupil-teacher ratio will be affected dramatically, and that will be detrimental to the quality of teaching. If the number of pupils per teacher increases, the physical size of the classrooms, particularly in rural communities, will be inadequate. I represent a rural constituency, and I have already experienced that problem in my area. It will be impossible to provide an education.
I had a meeting last week, before the debate was scheduled, with about 25 principal teachers, from primary to tertiary and across the maintained, voluntary and state sectors. They were unanimously of the opinion that, with the existing deficiencies in their budgets together with the forecast increased deficiencies, they will not be able to deliver the national curriculum.
I do not know who does the sums in the Department of Education, but I should have thought that any prudent financier would have looked at the objective and then


considered how to provide the sums necessary to achieve it. Presumably the minimum objective is the delivery of the national curriculum, and the sums should have been calculated to achieve that. It seems as if someone just said, "We need x million from here," without considering the consequences for the children.
I have no doubt that many of the small rural schools dotted around my constituency will be forced to close. As a general rule, one thing that those schools have and others do not necessarily have is high academic achievement. The figures show that. The cuts will lead to the further degradation of the rural population and the ensuing problems of rebuilding and relocating all the facilities in some town or city.
I hope that the Minister will convey to his colleagues the serious nature of the problem. If he does not appreciate it yet, I hope that he will do the necessary research to find out whether what is said by Northern Ireland Members is true or false. I am sure that he will find that it is true.
I was caught badly by the fact that the cuts in education will mean an end to the summer schemes for the less privileged or less able in our society. That includes schemes such as those run by Mencap. Such schemes provide recreational facilities for the mentally and physically disabled, but they have been cut out completely this year. What sort of society can fail to deliver such a small thing as that?
Another major area that has been cut and which will affect the ordinary man, woman and child is health. The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate has departmental responsibility for that. I am convinced from all the evidence given to me that, if we have a 3 per cent. cut upon a 3 per cent. cut, together with the recovery of the deficits that already exist on a very low budget, there is a great danger that the health service, or sectors of it, will collapse completely.
In reality, care in the community is a farce at the moment, because the funding is not there. The great promises that were made when people were taken out of institutions and left in the community, and the promised back-up to give those people a meaningful and easier life, were all for naught. When I heard from a constituent how many hours of care are provided in London, I could not believe the contrast with the amount provided by the Southern health board in my constituency. It is unbelievable that people get 38 hours' community care in London, but in my constituency people with the same disabilities get half an hour a day. What has gone wrong? I hope that the Minister will address that issue in his reply.
I know that the cuts will lead to increased waiting times, because that happened in January 1986 and 1987 when the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast cut non-elective surgery to nil. The fundholders could afford to pay for that surgery, which illustrated the double tier. The people on the waiting lists who will suffer most are those with cardiac problems and those with cancer. I do not have to spell out why they are the very members of society who cannot afford to wait. The Minister should take that point on board.
Why are the consequences of terrorism visited on the 98 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland who have no time for it and who suffer most from it? Why are children and ill people paying the price? The cost of the prevention of terrorism and other security measures should be a

national burden, and contributions should be made from the national coffers, rather than by the communities that suffer the double jeopardy of violence and the bomb, and the cuts in their education and health care.
That approach is immoral in any Christian society. The victims are penalised for the crimes they abhor. There is no logic or morality in that. I ask Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to tell the Treasury that we should be given the funding to deal with terrorism and other acts of lawlessness, to allow our people to enjoy the modicum of education and health care to which they are entitled.
I shall deal briefly with one or two agricultural issues. We have often debated the problem of BSE, and I do not want to repeat the well-argued case. I will leave that issue aside, but I hope that the submission made to Brussels last Tuesday will have an urgent and speedy passage through the committees there, to give some relief to the beef industry in Northern Ireland.
I draw the Minister's attention to the plight of the potato industry, which I have mentioned in the House before. The potato farmer is the poor relation of the agricultural scene. He does not receive benefits, subsidies, grants or deficiency payments. The potato farmer gets nothing—even though the market has collapsed this year—and he is just as much part of the agricultural scene as the dairyman, the beef farmer, the pig rearer and the cereal grower. But he is the only one who gets nothing.
Northern Ireland potato growers used to be at the forefront of the potato industry in Europe and the world, in both the quality and the variety of potatoes produced, but potato farmers need help to compete in a market that now demands higher quality. They need help to develop new varieties to meet the requirements of sophisticated households and the big chain stores.
This year, there are 25,000 tonnes of potatoes in dedicated stores and 14,000 tonnes in ambient stores, but there are another 60,000 tonnes of potatoes in old stores all over the place. Those potatoes will deteriorate, and will stop being marketable. I ask the Minister to pass on to the Minister responsible my urgent request for assistance to give some hope to the potato farmers, who used to lead the field in Europe and elsewhere.
Before I leave the subject of agriculture, may I ask the Minister to remind his fellow Minister about the Adjournment debate we had on the farming and countryside environmental scheme? That scheme is known as FACES—and there were lots of red faces in the Department of Agriculture, because the people there had made such a muff of it. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), promised an inquiry into the Department of Agriculture's handling of the scheme, and I should like to hear some word on how and when that will be initiated.
We have had many fishing debates, so I shall not delay the House by talking about fishing for very long. However, I would like a quick word on the subject, because the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority has imposed an increase of 50 per cent. on the landing levy on all catches in Northern Ireland.
The fishing industry is trying its best to keep its head above water economically—forgive the pun, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and the only reason given for that 50 per cent. increase in levies is that there is a small deficit in the budget of the NIFHA. It amounts to about £250,000, which in the context of the total budget is very little.
I shall now move on to talk about the Department of Economic Development. I re-echo the enthusiastic praises of the Industrial Development Board, and I envy its substantially increased budget. I hear with great joy of the inward investment and other indigenous successes for which the IDB claims credit, but I have another reason for being envious. As I have repeated ad nauseam to the House over the past 10 years, not one inward investment job has been created in the constituency of South Down, which is an area of social deprivation.
I saw a most interesting local statistic the other day—a House of Commons statistic about unemployment in the Northern Ireland constituencies. I got an awful shock when I looked at the figures for South Down, because they showed that, between January 1996 and January 1997, unemployment there had decreased by 19.3 per cent.
I scratched my head and wondered how that had happened, and where, in the name of God, those 1,222 jobs had come from, unbeknown to me. Then I looked more closely at the monthly statistics, and found that the phenomenon happened in September, October and November last year. If we cast our minds back, we can recall what happened in October and November. Those are statistics, damned statistics, and—but in this House I shall not go on to use the last phrase in that saying.
There has been no decrease in unemployment in South Down; there has simply been a transfer of statistics and a manipulation. We could not have had a 20 per cent. fall in unemployment in two months, yet that is what the statistics show. I stress that, over the past 10 years, not one inward investment has been made in the constituency of South Down, or even in the areas peripheral to it.
The second aspect of the proposed economic appropriations that causes great concern is the blanket cut imposed on the Training and Employment Agency. It is a dramatic cut, and what I have to say about it is similar to what I said about health. No one has looked at the consequences of the cut. The budget has simply been top-sliced, and the effects will filter down. No regard whatever has been paid to the quality of the schemes that will have to be abandoned, and no assessment has been made of the impact of the schemes on local communities.
Again, the areas of social deprivation and the people in the greatest need will suffer most. If there must be cuts, they should at least be made on a needs basis, taking account of social deprivation. There should not be a blanket cut.
I have good authority for saying that—no less an authority than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, in a statement on targeting on 10 December, said:
In programmes where I have had to make reductions, there may need to be some redistribution within the reduced totals to ensure that the most disadvantaged areas and people are targeted more clearly.
That simply has not been done. Did the Secretary of State not mean what he said, or is the Department simply ignoring him?
The Department of Finance and Personnel has been mentioned. The Minister of State has departmental responsibility for it, and there are some questions about the revaluations in Northern Ireland and about the

subsequent announcement regarding transitional relief, which has been applied for the first two years, 1997–98 and 1998–99.
The revaluations are often totally unrealistic, and do not seem to be consistent. I am not a member of the hurrah brigade welcoming the transitional relief, because that is merely pushing part of the problem two years on. It is like the man who built a house on top of a hill without planning permission and painted it pink. When everyone objected, he said, "Okay, I'll paint it grey," and everyone was happy, but the house was still on top of the hill. The problem is still exactly the same. It is time for some meaningful investigation to be made into the consequences of the revaluations in terms of ratings in the commercial and economic sectors, which are vulnerable. That should be taken on board.
It is immoral, unacceptable and unchristian for young men and women, boys and girls, in our education system, and those who need health care, especially those with more extreme cases of illness, to suffer more because of the terrorists. There is something wrong with that concept. Again, I ask the Minister and all those responsible to say to the Treasury in London, "This is not right."
I am sure that the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom would agree that it is morally wrong and unchristian for those totally innocent and vulnerable people to be affected for the rest of their lives—be it the long lives of the primary school children or the short lives of the people on long waiting lists—not to get the funding they deserve, to enable them at least to be on a level playing field with the rest of the citizens of the UK.

Sir David Mitchell: This appropriation order probably provides my last opportunity to contribute to a debate on expenditure in Northern Ireland. I want to make three points; but first let me say that I recognise that it is about 13 years since I had the honour to serve as a Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for the environment, and things should have changed since then. They have changed in terms of housing, with expenditure of about £608 million this year, in terms of jobs, and in many ways during the ceasefire, but, alas, the same intractable problems remain from one decade to the next.
If I have any credentials to speak, it is as one of the few Ministers whose departure from the Province was regretted by both the nationalist and the Unionist press. I also serve on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which met in Dublin this Monday and Tuesday.
My first point relates to local government. As hon. Members know, there are elected district councils in Northern Ireland, but their powers are not much greater than those of parish councils in Great Britain. Most of the work that would have been done by borough or county councils in Great Britain is, because of the McRory gap, carried out in Northern Ireland by the Department of the Environment.
My first proposition is that the Secretary of State should license some or all district councils to carry out a growing range of local government responsibilities normally carried out by district or county councils in Great Britain. I refer to licensing rather than to giving or transferring those powers, because I want it to be possible to withdraw the licences if a council acts in a way that discriminates against either the Unionist or the nationalist community.
I am very much aware that those in the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, and Westminster Ministers, are scrupulously non-sectarian in their administration of local government in the Province. So are many district councils. Indeed, when a council has a clear majority, either Unionist or nationalist, there appears to be little discrimination; it is when there is near-equality that attempts to discriminate, and the temptation to discriminate, are likely to arise. That is why I believe that the powers should be granted only on licence. I think that that will give a new vitality to local government, and ensure that there is value for money in Northern Ireland.
I also think that there is a case—in advance of what I have just proposed and, indeed, in advance of the completion of the peace talks—for reactivating and giving real substance to an important but unrecognised responsibility of Northern Ireland district councils. In addition to the meagre duties that those councils now perform, they have a special consultation role, which I think should be enhanced: I think that the Department of the Environment should implement the priorities chosen by district councils, as long as such action is within their budgets, and as long as their purposes are non-sectarian.
I was going to refer to the approaching marching season and the enormous costs associated with policing it, but I fear that, if I did so, I would be out of order, so I shall simply say that it takes two to have a confrontation.
I referred to the meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. During the two days that the meeting lasted, it covered BSE in cattle—north of the border as well as south—the International Fund for Ireland, the tourist industry and a host of other matters concerned with appropriations for Northern Ireland that the Minister mentioned in his opening speech. During that meeting in Dublin, a number of Members of Parliament sought to put the Unionist point of view—most particularly and outspokenly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Berkshire (Mr. MacKay).
I must say this to Unionist Members of Parliament: "Your friends do the best they can for you, but the authentic voice of Unionist Members would do a much better job." I hope that, before long, they will use the platform provided by that body to express their views, and to give Westminster and Dail Members a better understanding of Unionist policies, views and aspirations. A better understanding, on both sides of the border and both sides of the House, of the views of Northern Ireland Members in all the main parties would go a long way towards helping to redress the lack of understanding which, unfortunately, is so often the hallmark of Northern Ireland outside the Province.

Mr. William Ross: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. He was not always very popular then, and we did not always agree with him, but we nearly always found him exceedingly helpful. He was invariably courteous, and at the end of the day we usually reached an agreement with him—in so far as that was possible, given the financial restrictions within which he, like all Ministers, had to operate. I am one of those who count him as a friend, and my colleagues and I are very

sorry to see him depart. We wish that he had reconsidered and stayed for another term: his wisdom and understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland could have been put to good use.
This is always an important debate, but unfortunately it often skates over those things that do not appear like rocks above the surface of the administration of Northern Ireland at the time of any particular debate. I have often thought that we never get down to the nitty-gritty in the necessary detail. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I welcome very much the increased powers of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It is there that we shall be able to ask the nasty questions that are difficult to answer. Often, it is not so much Ministers as civil servants who find them difficult. We want to get into the detail, to know what is going on, to know where the money is being spent, and to try to unravel the sometimes contorted thinking that leads the Government to their conclusions.
Not least is the question of rates, which was touched on by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). There has been a huge increase in the rateable valuations of commercial property. While that will lead to a considerable decrease in the rate in the pound that will be sought from proprietors, we know that it will also lead in many cases to the most massive increases on commercial properties. It is difficult to see how a profit can be made when such sums are requested. The trouble is that many of those who draw up the rates have never had to earn their crust in the commercial world. They sit in an office, look at values and play around with the figures. When the individual running a business in a town or village has to find the money, it is a different kettle of fish.
I have long had a deep concern that the rating valuation, even within a small area, is not creating a level playing field. The officials who decide the valuations of premises in Londonderry, Limavady or Coleraine will not be the same ones who decide it in Lisburn, Newry or Armagh. A regional rate is to be applied across the Province on those different rateable valuations. I have never been convinced that that is a level playing field.
The objective of my hon. Friends and me is the continuance of the thriving town centres with which we have lived. They have thrived because of the profitability of their family businesses, but they are being placed under increasing strain by out-of-town shopping centres which have lower rates per square foot. They also have the advantage being able to provide free parking. In town, people have to pay to park and will probably have to walk quite a bit, which is not so convenient. Increasingly, out-of-town shopping centres are a one-stop shop for the week or the month while town centre shops are slowly deteriorating. The hon. Member for North-West Hampshire nods. We know that that is happening in England. Northern Ireland was late in taking off in that direction, but it is not a direction that I welcome. No sensible body welcomes it. It will be reversed only when the costs of out-of-town shopping centres mean that they compete on a level economic footing with smaller businesses in town centres. That has not yet been achieved anywhere in the United Kingdom.
It is a big task, but it is one that the Government—and any future Government—must face if we are to have a middle-class, home-based commercial sector such as has been the life-blood of so many communities. Small


businesses tend to spend their profits in the local community, while the profits of large national or multinational companies are spent in the streets of London. It is not healthy when so much of the commercial profit of this nation flows into the south-eastern corner of the country. From what I see around me, I believe that that point is well understood. Whether we receive an answer remains to be seen, but I hope that those in government and those who advise them will spend some time thinking about the dangerous situation that is being created.
It has been put to me that there is a tremendous delay in the valuation of Housing Executive property which is up for sale. The delay is several months from the application to buy. Until the valuation is given and a firm price is put on the house, the sale cannot proceed and the tenant has to continue paying rent, to no personal benefit. I have one or two cases of tenants who want to carry out improvements, but cannot do so. Whenever I inquired gently why the long delay seemed to occur, I was told that it was because the Valuation and Lands Agency had spent months doing nothing but rateable value revaluations. For that reason, the tenants of Housing Executive properties are now suffering. Could someone please examine the matter urgently and do something?
I know that the Government's process is such that they will not bring in any extra staff, but something should be done to allow the houses to be sold a little quicker. At the end of the process, the Valuation and Lands Agency lost the contract for valuation of Housing Executive properties. It is now being done by a Belfast firm which employs local estate agents to do the job. So concentrating its fire on one particular point because the Government insisted that it do so has not helped the lands valuation system in Northern Ireland. Perhaps someone could examine the consequences of overloading a service for a period and the consequences for the customers—in this case, the Housing Executive tenants. I suspect that if Housing Executive tenants face delays in obtaining valuations, many other people who seek valuations of property face long delays, with untold financial consequences.
I have special responsibility as agriculture spokesman within my party for the farming community. Once, the people of Ireland north and south rejoiced in the fact that they had a double water barrier between themselves and all the diseases of the continent. The European ideal is a single market in which all the barriers disappear. The barriers were not only to trade, but to disease. Now we have blue-ear disease in pigs and Newcastle disease is spreading among poultry.
When a spokesman from the Irish Republic was asked how his country had escaped the outbreak of Newcastle disease, he simply answered, "We have had a strong south-west wind," and he was probably right. We are now vaccinating birds rather than slaughtering them in an effort to clear up Newcastle disease. I understand that any vaccination programme suppresses rather than gets rid of a disease. I am curious about whether a serious effort is to be made to clear Northern Ireland of Newcastle disease so that we can return to the standards of health that we enjoyed until a few weeks ago.
The problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy is now a year old. I will not add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux)

said, except to say that Northern Ireland should always have been looked upon as the test of the good faith of the European nations and whether they would accept that the cull was sufficient to open the door to United Kingdom beef. Within a few weeks, Northern Ireland will meet the criteria and we shall then see whether Europe is genuine or whether it is using all its demands as an excuse to keep United Kingdom beef out of Europe. The Minister should keep up the good work and keep the pressure on. We should complete the cull to see what those in Europe then say. We will then know whether we are dealing with friends or foes. We will then know whether we are dealing with people who are clear and honest in their demands or whether they are using those demands simply as an excuse to protect their beef industries through the back door.
In Northern Ireland, in common with everywhere else, there is increasing concern about the environment. The principal polluter in Northern Ireland is the Department of the Environment. The Minister is not happy about that, but he is stuck with that nasty label. We hope that he or his successors, whoever they may be, will manage to deal with the problem of the DOE in a few years. I hope that higher standards will be applied constantly so that we can get rid of the environmental problems from that particular source.
We are still left with the problem of farm pollution, which is another serious difficulty. When I was a boy, I remember that the pollutant in rivers that caused fish to die was flax water. When the flax was rendered in dams, the water was made devoid of oxygen and so the poor fish died. Today, flax has been replaced by a material a thousand times more deadly—silage effluent and slurry. That is a constant problem in the rivers and lakes of Northern Ireland. I believe that not enough has been done on farms to provide storage for such fluids.
I accept that it is a costly business to build silage tanks. Some farmers have opted for the big bale system of silage to overcome a great deal of the silage effluent problem. If the Government are considering ways in which to help agriculture, I hope that they will look seriously at means of restoring a grant system for the building and refurbishment of storage tanks for all kinds of farm effluent. That would be a great help.
Farming has never been the prosperous business that it is believed to be by those outside the industry. It has always had difficulties. I should like to believe that continuing help will be provided to farmers to erect buildings for shelter for man and beast, especially in the winter months when stock must be brought in. The problem relating to the provision of such buildings has not been properly addressed in the past few years.
The hon. Member for South Down, who has had to leave the Chamber, referred to the problem of potatoes. I do not wish to add to his remarks, but I encourage the Government to consider carefully whether anything can be done to help that sector, which was once such a major part of the agriculture industry of Northern Ireland. It has fallen on such hard times that the huge seed potato industry has vanished. We should try to reverse that outcome.
Other difficulties relate to the use of marginal land. Some years ago, I planted a few acres of trees. I like trees, and some were planted as an amenity and some as a long-term investment. The acreage was small, but I learned a lot, including the fact that the effort of clearing


existing growth before the planting of trees is an unprofitable business. One makes money from trees only when they are cut down, but even with Sitka spruce one has to wait between 30 and 35 years. If one grazed even sheep on such land for 35 years, I suspect that they would return a much higher profit. That activity would also yield a profit every year; one would not have to wait for it.
If the Government plan to increase the planting of timber in Northern Ireland, especially broad-leaved species, they should consider carefully any incentives that they may want to give to farmers, especially to those who plant small acreages of trees. In 20 years, such areas would add to the amenity value of the countryside. Plenty of things could be done, even by comparatively small landowners, in that regard.
I have a continuing anxiety about the long-term future of farming. The age profile of farmers and workers on the land in Northern Ireland is far too high. We have a problem with getting more young people into farms. I was sitting counting up mentally the number of farms in my own townland 25 or 30 years ago. Where there were 10 full-time farmers, today there are two. That says much about the efficiency of the industry, but it also shows the tremendous drop in the number of people who earn their living from the land, because the decrease in farmers is repeated in every townland in Northern Ireland.
There comes a point in time, which I believe that we have reached, when there are just too few hands—tob few people working the land. I believe in the family farm, but that really is a farm that produces an income for two families—father and son. That is the only way to have a truly viable farm. Below that, at the bottom end of the scale, are the smaller, part-time farmers—people who have another job and who farm half as a hobby and half for the extra income. In between are the many farms in Northern Ireland that produce only a one-family income, and they will have increasing difficulty.
Ministers should therefore try diligently to improve farming education and, above all, to improve business training for the farming community. Farmers are good at producing food, caring for animals and growing crops, but they are not trained in the business world in which they now have to operate. That problem should receive far more attention than it has received so far.
When I spoke in the corresponding debate in 1996, I said that we were told that three quarters of jobs had to go to deprived areas. I wonder whether that remains Government policy—if it has been Government policy in the past 12 months—and, if so, which of those deprived areas have benefited. Have they got the three quarters of incoming jobs—and, if not, why not?
Specifically, may I be told why there appears to be such a large and continuing imbalance in the visits made by potential investors to different areas? I notice that Newry and Armagh received eight visits in 1993, five in 1994 and 28 in 1995. I have not found out how many visits they have received this year, but there has been a remarkable increase.
On the other hand, my inquiries suggest that there have been few, if any, visits in other areas. Limavady has fared very badly, Magherafelt has done no better, and Coleraine—a fairly important town in the Northern Ireland context—received eight visits in 1993, one in 1994 and five in 1995. I hope that those figures have improved considerably, because East Londonderry has the

unhappy distinction of being one of those constituencies in Northern Ireland with very high unemployment. We badly need more inward investment there—or, even better, more encouragement for the home-grown investor, who should be the backbone of our economy.
Disappointingly, it appears that this year the Training and Employment Agency will not take on young people until September. I understand that last year it took on 6,000 young people when they left school, about 1,200 or 1,400 of whom returned to school in September. As a result, this year we are told, "We are not taking on any; we are waiting until September to see who goes back to school."
One thing that Northern Ireland does not need, in what may prove to be a long, hot summer, is 6,000 or 7,000 young people running around with nothing to do. I encourage the Minister to re-examine the issue seriously. Last year, some young people who did not intend to go back to school went back, and some of those who had always intended to go back to school went back, but at least they were given some training in the world of work, and that was time well spent.
Finally, I have not yet managed to work out how much is being clawed back for security. I remember all the money that was promised for capital build projects in schools last year. The figures looked good; then we were told that the money was not to be spent until the next financial year. I assume, therefore, that much of the capital spending for this year is already in the pipeline, and that the money for capital projects recently announced this year is for spending in the next financial year. Either way, we should be told.
May we be given a list of the headings of expenditure that are being reduced to pay for extra security? May we also have a full comparison with the headings that were given increased allocations during the so-called dividend that resulted from the IRA ceasefire? I for one have not yet managed to get the figures to add up. The people of Northern Ireland deserve to be told in rather clearer terms exactly what the peace dividend and the clawback amount to.

Rev. William McCrea: Because of the nature of the problem facing my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland, I regard this as one of our most important debates. We are discussing a major transfer of money that will have an impact on every sector of our community. That is why I am so disappointed by the empty Benches in the Chamber. It may seem easy to condemn the lack of money for education, the health service or for other major public services, and to describe the tremendous pressure under which we representatives of the people find ourselves because of the lack of finance to meet their needs. But I honestly believe that hon. Members should take the opportunity of this debate to make their opinions heard. This is the place where elected representatives ought to express their serious concerns about the impact of the settlement on their constituencies.
Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, including me, believe in value for money. I do not believe in spending money for the sake of spending it. I believe that every pound should count and that we should try to extract the most value from every pound spent. I also agree—this point was touched on earlier by my hon. Friend the


Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—that it is immoral of the Government to take away from the children and the elderly of Ulster the money that is so important to their future well-being—money for education and the health service. It is wrong to take away that money because of a terrorist campaign that is not the responsibility of those people—yet they are the ones suffering because of the campaign. Adding to their suffering from the campaign by taking away funds that are necessary for the services that the community needs is simply adding insult to injury. I trust, however, that Northern Ireland Ministers will go back to the Treasury and ask for more money to meet needs in the Province which I—and many Ministers too—believe must be met.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), who spoke earlier, for his interest in Northern Ireland. I remember the time when he was a Minister in Northern Ireland. I was the vice-president of the Northern Ireland Local Authorities Association at the time. He was an excellent Minister and showed tremendous concern for the people of Northern Ireland. If those were his last comments on Northern Ireland in the House, I want to express on behalf of my colleagues our deep appreciation for the service that he gave to the people of Northern Ireland as a Minister.
The first vote this evening is that for the Department of Agriculture. I come from a rural constituency, Mid-Ulster, and not surprisingly I am deeply concerned about what is happening in the agricultural community. Over recent months, members of the farming community have spoken to me about their depression and feeling of hopelessness. Many of them are facing financial ruin and problems to which they were not contributors—for example, BSE. Northern Ireland farmers, like others, were not responsible for that major problem facing the farming community, but unfortunately it has caused them intolerable suffering.
Farmers face further difficulties from Newcastle disease, the blue ear problem in the pig industry, and the problem in the potato industry. The Department must assist them. I hope that when the noble Lady, the Under-Secretary of State, reads the debate, she will do all that she can to help in every sector. I mentioned the potato industry because I believe that it has been regarded by many as the poor relation of the agricultural industry, and that market has collapsed.
Moving on to the Department of the Environment, we have expressed on numerous occasions in the House our concern about the axing of ACE jobs. In the light of the representations that have been made in relation to that problem, the proposals should be reconsidered.
We have serious concerns about road maintenance in Mid-Ulster, which has vast road mileage. Rather than coping, we seem to be getting into ever deeper problems of road maintenance. I trust that the Minister will turn his attention to the problem of road gritting, as many major accidents have been caused by the lack of gritting at appropriate times. Forecasts of frost are broadcast on radio and television, but even when ample warning is given, little heed is paid.
My colleagues and I had a meeting with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. One of the topics discussed was renovation grants. The backlog of cases must be dealt

with, which will take a considerable sum, but the money should be provided so that people can live in conditions that are appropriate for the beginning of the 21st century.
Can the Minister tell us when the area plan for Cookstown will be concluded? The old area plan for the Magherafelt area is now out of date—it expired in 1996—but I understand that work on a new plan has not yet started. That is holding up vital planning approvals in our area. It is totally wrong that, because there has been neglect in providing a new area plan for Magherafelt, ordinary decent people of the community are held to ransom. It is to be deeply regretted that, as the Department with responsibility for roads, the Department of the Environment, tells us, the Magherafelt bypass has been in the plan for the past 15 or 20 years and is still no further forward.
The upgrading of the M2 is essential, as is the Cookstown bypass. It will not take a tremendous amount of money to meet the need for some of these schemes, but that money is not forthcoming. I trust that there will be announcements that we will receive the money that is necessary. Money is also needed for the continuation and widening of the road from Coagh to Arboe and for the footpath in Coagh village.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim mentioned quite a few matters in relation to the Department of Education that are causing concern. However, it is not only to be regretted, but disgraceful that nursery provision in Northern Ireland is going to be held back when we should be moving forward on this. Expectations were built up and there is much disappointment.
On the building programme, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has been successful in relation to Belmont primary school. That has been going for many years. I have heard him mention that school, but many of the schools in my constituency face an intolerable situation of mobile classrooms, yet we are not able to get away from that.
Although additional funding has been made available in England and Wales, in Northern Ireland, there have been cuts in education and in the research grant for universities, which is not only to be regretted, but to be deplored.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is winding up, certainly has the health portfolio as well. Because of time, I will just touch on these matters, but I trust that, some day, the Prime Minister who occupies the Dispatch Box will tell us that the pensioners of the United Kingdom will receive not a miserable pension, but an appropriate pension, so that they are not left to spend their last few days in a poverty trap with inadequate provision.
Many of our elderly people using home helps and in community care face intolerable problems. Some have 15 minutes a week of home help. That is absolutely disgusting and an insult to those people. Care has been removed from hospital to the community, yet the finances have not been brought along with that and many people feel neglected. The elderly are deeply concerned, especially those in their latter years.
Recently, I have had numerous communications concerning the changes in social security offices. It is said that many hundreds of social security offices throughout our Province are threatened with closure by 1998, with a


transfer of jobs from the public to the private sector, which will administer the detailed finances in the cheapest way, so many people will lose their job.
I want to express appreciation to the Minister of State, on the rates in the revaluation. He listened to the representation that was made. I thank him for his concern in the matter and for listening to that representation with care. I ask him, however, to consider the £10,000 level because I am led to believe that that was the level when the matter was considered on the mainland some years ago. We have moved on and valuations have been raised since then. Therefore, will he consider that level further? It would alleviate the problems of many people who face an intolerable burden. Will he review that level in the interests of many of our constituents?

Rev. Martin Smyth: If the Minister cannot continue his reply to this morning's debate—which touched on appropriation issues—in his reply to this debate, we look forward to receiving replies in writing.
In last Thursday's Northern Ireland Question Time, a question was asked about the action for community employment programme. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made the point that we will have to suffer because of the problems caused by the resumption of terrorism and violence. In a speech on a different occasion, the Secretary of State compared the current situation with that during the second world war, when we all had to tighten our belts and suffer. There is a distinct difference, however, because on that occasion Northern Ireland suffered with the rest. Although there were those within the then free state who were not prepared to allow the British Government to conscript in Northern Ireland, we sent volunteers. People in our own family made the supreme sacrifice.
Our people have been suffering, although it seems wrong to use that type of argument in this context. When the announcement was made on a replacement for Britannia, it was said that it would be financed out of the reserve fund. I thought that that was interesting because, although we are supposed to be a bankrupt nation, we still have reserves. Instead of putting pressure on the budget for the needy in Northern Ireland, perhaps we should have taken more money out of reserves to deal with the problem.
I should like quickly to mention several matters. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) mentioned the railway system. Over the years, the Minister and his predecessors have received much correspondence from me about the stretch of line between the old Great Northern station, which will be the new Belfast Central, and the Lisburn Road and the Great Northern track. We were told that there was not a real problem but a minor problem that would be dealt with on this or that occasion.
We are now being told that the situation is worse than had been realised. Why has it turned out to be worse? Local residents and myself went on the track to illustrate the problems. They performed some simple repairs, such as filling in holes, and showed that our assessment of the problem was correct. When will the situation be dealt with—not only for the benefit of the residents but for the benefit of our entire economy? In our drive to increase exports, we use the railway to take traffic off the road system.
I apologise for my earlier statement that redundancies in education would cost £50 million. In the back of my mind, I was thinking about the £50-odd million in the health budget. Redundancies in education will cost about £5.5 million., which is still rather high.
I return to the decision taken by education boards and others that there will be no summer schemes this year for those with mental handicaps. Such schemes are not simply social. Anyone who knows anything about education knows that those children must be regularly stimulated, and that such schemes are educational rather than simple child minding. It is also a service to parents. If parents break down because they have to give that extra attention to their children, those children will have to be taken into care, creating a larger expense for the community budget. Therefore, I ask and plead that further consideration be given to the matter. The simple explanation that has been offered—that there are not sufficient trained staff—is not the real one. The real explanation is that we are prepared to withdraw services that young people need because of a lack of finance. Where there is a will, there is a way. I am convinced that we could find the money if we were prepared to do so.
I urge the Minister to give us at least a chink of light to suggest that our concerns will be addressed. I recognise the difficulties in moving money from one budget to another, but I was struck by the £14 million underspend in the health budget, which has been carried over. That happened at a time when we were told that there was no money in the budget. We need closer scrutiny of the movement of money in the health service.
Whether people like it or not, the management executive has become the holding company of the health service and there are different firms in the service. As I understand industry, if there is a pressure in one company under such a holding company, money can be moved temporarily from where there is a surplus to meet needs elsewhere. If that is the structure, it is time that the management executive began to deal with the issue seriously.
I do not want to prolong the debate, although I could return to issues that we raised this morning. I am happy to share with my colleagues who raised the issues. We would love to know not only where the money has to be spent, but from where it is being saved.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to put on record immediately my endorsement of the remarks of the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady) about the axing of the summer scheme for those with a mental handicap. I cannot believe that a Minister, when deciding where to make an incision, could choose that area. If the Minister saw the enjoyment that the children at Torbank school in my area get out of the summer scheme and the relief that their parents get, he would look elsewhere for his cuts. I know that my colleagues from other areas have had similar concerns expressed to them. There is to be a public meeting on the subject in my area tomorrow night. I trust that the Minister understands that there is concern among all hon. Members from Northern Ireland about the issue. I hope that he will take that concern on board and see what he can do. He should review the decision and change his mind. That would be welcomed by all parties.
I should also like to put on record my appreciation to the Education Minister that justice has at last been done for Belmont primary school. It is, alas, too late for the present headmistress, who has served the school for many years but who will be ending her service this year and will therefore not see the new school open during her period of stewardship. When he writes to us at the end of the debate, will the Minister give me an idea of when the work will start? There are some nasty rumours going about that, although the project has been included in the expenditure that the Minister announced recently, it could well be more than a year before anything begins to happen.
I ask the Environment Minister, who is to wind up the debate, to take on board the concerns expressed at a public meeting in Dundonald last night about the Comber road. In a short period, 105 accidents—including two fatalities—have been reported on that road. The road is narrow, and has a number of bends. The area has poor lighting and some large housing estates have been built nearby that come out on to that B road. The only plans are for about 250 m of improvement. The area is so dangerous that the Minister must consider trying to get a scheme up and running to remove that danger. My wife, who represents that area, received a telephone call at 8.30 this morning and was told that, following last night's public meeting, another accident had occurred in which a car hit a telegraph pole. I urge the Minister to examine the matter urgently.
In the past few days, the Minister has announced the planned merger of the hospital trust and the community trust. The hospital trust had been a thorn in the Minister's side as it had been helpful in advising elected representatives of the real difficulties that it faced. At one stage, it was forced to consider the possibility of making 200 nurses redundant because the money would not stretch to the end of the financial year. The Minister injected a small amount of money into the hospital, which did not balance the books, but at least allowed for a manageable overspend.
The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but some people suspect that he has taken punitive action against a hospital trust that was drawing attention to underfunding and wiped it out by merging it with the community trust. They claim that he is trying to avoid awkward questions about the matter in the Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps he will tell us in his winding-up speech about his intentions regarding the trust. When our attention is drawn to underfunding in the health service, I do not think that it is appropriate to respond by removing resistance in the form of those who have served the community well.
The Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals health and social services trust is badly underfunded. I do not blame the Minister totally, as the situation is due not simply to the amount of money that the Government have allocated to the health service but to a breakdown in the money to the various boards. The Eastern health and social services board is underfunded in relation to the other boards, and the health trust is underfunded compared with others in the Eastern area. The problem will not be solved simply by wiping away the hospital trust by merging it with the community trust. That move may cost money. Has the Minister calculated the cost of the redundancies?

I remember one redundancy costing £300,000. That money would be put to better use funding the health service.
Time does not permit me to refer to several other issues, and I know that Front Benchers wish to address a number of matters. I am delighted about the tremendous news, announced by Shorts in the past few weeks, regarding the regional jet. Shorts is to get additional work as a result of the Canada contract, which will secure jobs in the company and create additional employment. The Ministry of Defence contract for 1,000 new missiles is also good news for Shorts. It will benefit other areas besides east Belfast. The hon. Member for South Down complained that the Industrial Development Board did not consider his constituency for inward investment. People come from Ballynahinch, Grossgar and the surrounding areas to work for Shorts. Subcontract work is going to many places in the Greater Belfast area, and probably beyond it.
I trust that the Minister will discuss with the MOD the ASTOR contract for an airborne platform for reconnaissance. The MOD was supposed to make an announcement towards the end of March, but we have not heard a squeak about it so far. I hope that there will be no slippage in announcing that programme, which would be vital for the Shorts group.
I referred briefly to the Dundonald training school in the Grand Committee, and I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. I ask the Opposition to do the same, because they could well be the Government when action on the Dundonald training school could still be taken. For the want of £0.25 million to repair a roof, that training school is to be closed. It is one of 10 training centres in Northern Ireland that are strategically placed so that the whole of the Province is covered. By taking that training centre away, the north Down, Strangford and east Belfast area will lose out compared with the rest of the Province. Baroness Denton announced a speculative scheme in west Belfast that will cost £2 million, and there is no one to move into the factory, whereas £0.25 million would ensure that 300 places are kept in the Dundonald centre.
I wanted to go into detail about the loss of ACE jobs and about jobseekers. I touched on the matter in the Grand Committee, and I will allow that to satisfy me.
I ask the Minister to consider the Dundonald training centre. We must not allow it to be taken out of the overall scheme in Northern Ireland. I hope that I will get a ready response from the Opposition, and that they will do their part, if and when they are in government, to ensure that the centre remains open. I look forward to having a positive response from them, if not from the present Government.

Mr. Dowd: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can speak only with the leave of hon. Members.

Mr. Dowd: I was about to ask for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is leave granted for 10 minutes?

Mr. Dowd: I would speak for 10 minutes, but we would run out of time.
I want to give the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) my assurance that, should the British people give us the opportunity, we will certainly consider the Dundonald training school if it still exists. We will consider all the training programmes.

Sir John Wheeler: Where will the money come from?

Mr. Dowd: It is strange that the Minister did not want me to speak, but that he now wants me to answer questions. I will happily tell him. I will send him details of our five pledges, which include using the windfall levy— [Interruption.] It seems that the Minister knew all along; he was only pretending. We shall consider all issues related to training, especially training of the long-term unemployed. If the Dundonald centre is still there, it will certainly come under that review.
I wanted to say only two things in response to the debate. What I want to say to the Minister is education, education, education. If the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will forgive me, I shall mention only the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). If that was his last contribution, he has brought a distinguished career to a distinguished conclusion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I was going to begin by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), not because he will be taking my job soon, but because it is his 46th birthday today. I wish him happy birthday. It is my birthday tomorrow, but I am older than 46.

Rev. Ian Paisley: How old?

Mr. Moss: I am not saying.
I shall begin by re-emphasising a point made by the Secretary of State on a number of occasions, but most recently towards the end of last year, which underpins the decisions taken in the latest public expenditure survey round. This issue has been raised by many hon. Members, who have asked why we have redistributed the peace dividend moneys by taking them from front-line services and putting them into security and law and order. We have often said that if violence resumed, the savings in the law and order budget that were released for the benefit of other programmes in the 1994 and 1995 public expenditure surveys may have to be restored. That was reiterated by the Secretary of State in December 1996. He added that, in total, almost £120 million extra was being provided for security and compensation over the survey period. He said that he would have much preferred to have used the money on, for example, job creation, schools, hospitals and housing, but that the peace dividend had, alas, been reversed and that that had obviously had an adverse effect on the provision of public services in Northern Ireland.
I shall reply to a number of questions raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, which were reiterated by many other hon. Members. He asked why I made my

announcement in a parliamentary answer. I did so to inform hon. Members of the Government's public expenditure plans before they were announced publicly. The hon. Gentleman asked whether expenditure put back into law and order for this year could be reversed if there were to be a ceasefire tomorrow. The answer is yes: if circumstances allow, resources can be moved to other programmes. That question was also asked by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). We can vire money interdepartmentally and, if there was a ceasefire and it was possible to make savings in the law and order budget, we could look carefully at where the money could best be spent in other Departments.
Many hon. Members asked about the BSE programme. Tracing visits started in Northern Ireland on 20 January and the slaughter of about 1,500 home-bred animals is to be completed within about eight weeks. The first slaughtering took place on 28 February, when 206 animals were slaughtered.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West and most other hon. Members asked about the cuts in the ACE programme. The ACE provision must be seen in the context of an improving economic situation in Northern Ireland. Over the past five years, the Northern Ireland index of manufacturing output has increased by 18.7 per cent. compared with an increase of just 9.1 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Unemployment has fallen by a record amount. Seasonally adjusted unemployment at January 1997 was 9.2 per cent. of the work force, its lowest level for 16 years.
Significantly, there was also a fall of nearly 8,300 in the long-term unemployed. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Belfast, South who talked about the change in unemployment figures as a result of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. More directly, Northern Ireland has had a seasonal record of more than 573,000 people in jobs.
The Dundonald training centre was raised by the hon. Members for Lewisham, West and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). It is understandable that the decision to close the training centre has been greeted locally with some dismay. There are a number of reasons for the closure. It has been increasingly difficult to attract young people to the centre and, currently, there are only 286 trainees as against a capacity of 408. Considerable capital building work needs to be undertaken to keep the centre operational. Also, there is already adequate alternative provision within the area for training opportunities and there are vacancies for trainees elsewhere in the training centre network.
Several hon. Members asked about the regional rate. An order to make the regional rate for 1997–98 will be brought forward next week. On transitional relief, the focus is on smaller properties which will be facing the largest increases in rates. There are two conditions for transitional relief. First, the net annual value of the property must be £10,000 or less and, secondly, the increase in the bill due to revaluation must be greater than 25 per cent. The scheme offers 100 per cent. relief in the first year, two-thirds relief in the second year and a third in the third year. The full bill is payable from the fourth year. The scheme is automatic and no applications are required.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Lewisham, West asked about the railways, particularly the upgrade of the Belfast-Dublin rail link. Work on the upgrade is progressing and we hope that the new trains will be running by mid-1997. We have run into some problems on the section mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, between the City hospital and Lisburn. In the past two or three years, it has deteriorated more rapidly than expected, necessitating the bringing forward of work planned for the next century.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West and others mentioned housing. The total resources for housing for the financial year 1997–98 are planned to be £608 million, which is similar to the likely outturn for the previous year. The resources are planned to increase to some £616 million in 1998–99 and to £623 million in 1999–2000. Those substantial resources demonstrate the Government's continued commitment to this important social programme.
The resources earmarked for the pre-school voucher scheme have been retained in the education budget. Legislation currently before Parliament will provide the Government with enabling powers to introduce the scheme to Northern Ireland when the requisite resources become available.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order[13 February]

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

POLICE (INSURANCE OF VOLUNTARY ASSISTANTS) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Coe.]

Resolved,

Motion made, and Question proposed,

War Crimes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Coe.]

10 pm

Sir Cyril Townsend: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate again the War Crimes Act 1991. I last had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 9 July 1992. Since then, of course, Britain's first war crimes trial has collapsed. My message is clear—the absurd business should never have begun and should now be brought immediately to a halt before further police time and public money are wasted.
The case against the Act is even stronger now than it was in 1991. The issue attracts powerful emotions. It has divided both sides of the House, and it has divided the House from another place. I believe that that controversial and peculiar legislation first arose from a visit paid to the state of Israel by Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. The Israeli authorities disliked her strong and justified words about the way in which they treated the Palestinians. Looking for something to help improve her relations with the Israeli Government, Baroness Thatcher agreed to consider allowing trials of alleged war criminals said to be living in Britain.
As a result, the Home Secretary of the day set up an inquiry which was asked to examine documents submitted by the Simon Wiesenthal centre, which is itself controversial. Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers submitted their report to the Home Secretary in June 1989. It is worth noting how long ago their report was written and how slowly events have moved since then. One wonders whether the authors of that report would still be in favour of prosecutions after such a long delay. I suspect not.
The inquiry considered 369 cases and it recommended that 75 of them should be accorded further investigation. Amazingly, those involved reached the conclusion that there were only three individuals against whom evidence existed to meet the demands for prosecutions. In the parliamentary debates that followed, the Commons backed the legislation. Some 55 Tory Members—including myself, I am proud to say—voted against the legislation. I welcome the Minister who will reply to the debate, but I could not find out how he voted. It looks as if he abstained, but perhaps he will comment on that point.
I understand that the Prime Minister voted against the concept of legislation right at the beginning of the proceedings. Certainly, strong views were expressed in the Cabinet against such legislation. The other place rejected legislation by an overwhelming majority, the Law Lords apparently being unwilling to go down that path.
Conservative peers who opposed the legislation were led by those of the calibre of Lord Carrington, Lord Hailsham, Lord Home of The Hirsel and Lord Havers. Such peers represented the generation that lived through the second world war. They knew better than younger people of the Nazi horrors, the holocaust and, of course, the Nuremberg trials. In their speeches, those people constantly referred to the decision by Bevan, Attlee and Churchill in 1948 to cease war crimes trials. With those most responsible for the war largely sentenced, those three eminent politicians thought that it would be wrong to reach down and seek to prosecute every lance-corporal in Hitler's SS for what had happened.
In both Houses, many speakers mentioned that the legislation would be retrospective—something about which many of us are always extremely cautious.
The Act is directed against a small group of men, now British citizens but formerly citizens of the Baltic states, who are accused of being responsible for murders in German-occupied territory during the second world war.

Mr. David Sumberg: Was not the essence of the legislation the fact that those men were not British citizens? Had they been British citizens when they committed or may have committed the crimes, they would have been liable to be prosecuted for murder. There was therefore a lacuna in the law, which treated those who were not born British more favourably than those who were.

Sir Cyril Townsend: My hon. Friend has a valid point; a murder is a murder. Had those men remained in the original territories and had they been tried at an earlier stage, all would have been well. I do not dispute my hon. Friend's observation.
I object to the fact that the legislation is so restricted—restricted to those few men. It does not attempt to cover the all too many atrocities committed elsewhere during and after the war. For example, my father fought in the Burma campaign. The Japanese war crimes are ignored, although the treatment of British prisoners of war was horrendous. More recent crimes committed in Palestine, Cambodia and Iraq are not covered either. The legislation is highly restricted. That is the point that I would put to my hon. Friend.
The House of Commons does not come out well as a result of its support for the legislation. A tiny, well-financed overseas pressure group seeking revenge and retribution was able to have far too much influence on the Commons. I suspect that too many of my colleagues found it prudent to go along with the legislation rather than to take a stand—although I must add that I was under no particular pressure from my Bexleyheath constituents. I suggest that that was a bad case of the tail wagging the dog, and of Parliament being pushed around by pressure groups.
Will the legislation reduce anti-Semitism? Obviously, that would be the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and myself. In a letter to The Times on 29 July 1989, Lord Shawcross, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, expressed views that also represent mine:
Revival of these sad and terrible matters by sensational trials of a small handful of aged men, which will take years to conduct and which will start with an assumption of guilt, will not help to promote understanding and friendship between the different peoples of the world, will not help eliminate the evils of anti-semitism nor, still less, enhance respect for British justice".
There re many aspects of the Act, and in a short debate I shall not have time to touch on them all, but I shall raise some of them briefly.
When the Bill went through Parliament, its supporters, including Ministers, drew attention to the experience of Canada, Australia and Israel, which had passed laws along roughly the same lines. Subsequent experience in those countries has confirmed the worst expectations of the Bill's opponents. Israel, for example, had the grim and ghastly affair of the wrong Ivan the Terrible being

convicted. Will the Minister list those countries that are still proceeding in that regard? I think that Russia is one of the very few.
I said in my previous Adjournment debate that the bill could be perhaps £10 million before this shocking affair is behind us. What has been spent so far? The Guardian claimed on 4 February this year that £6 million had gone towards the Metropolitan police costs and £2 million for the Crown Prosecution Service. When the time of Ministers and civil servants is properly taken into account, my figure of £10 million still looks possible. Press reports have suggested a figure of £15 million.
In a parliamentary question in July 1992 I asked how many police officers, of what ranks, were employed in police work flowing from the War Crimes Act 1991. I was told that in England and Wales there were one detective chief superintendent, one detective chief inspector, three detective inspectors, one detective sergeant, three detective constables and two police constables: a total of 11. The figure in Scotland was three.
The Metropolitan police war crimes unit was also supported by seven civilians. I hope that the Minister will tell the House what action, if any, is still going on in New Scotland Yard. Is the unit still in existence, albeit frozen? Is the Metropolitan police budget making any contribution at this stage, as was suggested some years ago? It would be wrong if that were the case, because war crimes are a national not a local matter.
As a London Member, I say unhesitatingly that the time of those 11 officers could and should have been much better spent dealing with today's terrorists, murderers, rapists and burglars in the Metropolitan police area. Surely the Minister will recognise that a detective chief superintendent is a most valuable individual—a key piece on the crime chessboard—whose time, dealing, for example, with London's new armed gangs and the masters of the drugs scene, could have brought major benefits.
According to the Lord Advocate, there are to be no war crimes trials in Scotland. What is the future of war crimes trials in England in 1997? A few weeks ago, Szymon Serafinowicz, an 86-year-old retired carpenter from Banstead in Surrey, was found unfit to stand trial by an Old Bailey jury. They had heard evidence that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He had faced serious charges of murdering unknown Jews in Belarus between 1941 and March 1942. That is a long time ago. The Minister himself did not grace our world until April 1945.
What exact details can anyone recall in 1997 of events in 1941, 56 years ago? The trials revolve around correct identification, as the Israelis found so embarrassingly to their cost. A few years ago, after the comparatively recent riots at Wapping, I was intrigued to see that a judge dismissed a trial on the ground that the events took place too long ago for people to be able to recall the exact details.
The more atrocious the crime, the more scrupulously the rules of criminal justice should be observed. Lord Donaldson, when Master of the Rolls, pointed out that a case turning on identification 45 years after an alleged offence was a preposterous proposition. What would he think of a period of 50 or even 60 years?
The Director of Public Prosecutions has, for various reasons that I am not clear about, refused to set a cut-off point for the trials. I do not believe that war crimes trials held in the inevitable blaze of publicity can possibly add


to the reputation of our legal system—at the moment, a rather damaged reputation—but they could certainly harm it further.
The reality is that more than 100 people on the initial list of suspects have died. The tiny and pathetic group of elderly people who remain on the list—I believe that we are still talking of about five people—have nothing left to offer, and a short while left to live. It would now be amazing if a successful prosecution took place, and even more amazing if an individual were sent to prison—most likely to the prison hospital.
The journalist Milton Shulman wrote a few years ago:
There is no excuse for these proceedings which have become an aberration of British justice. It is intolerable that such an inhuman and costly fiasco should continue to run and run.
In a leading article in January 1995, The Daily Telegraphhad this to say:
None of this should be taken to imply that any of us should forget or excuse the WAR CRIMES and their perpetrators. The wickedness of those who committed dreadful deeds 50 or more years ago is not in doubt. But when the resources of police forces up and down the land are stretched to the limit, to devote millions to WAR CRIMES investigations that have such scant prospects of success is not only futile, but profligate.
The WAR CRIMES BILL was chiefly a personal folly of Lady Thatcher in her last months of office …Large sums of public money have been wasted in pursuit of objectives which most sensible voices from the outset declared to be unattainable.
Exactly so—and further large sums of public money will continue to be wasted until this fiasco is killed off. It would have been much more sensible to spend the millions of pounds that have been spent on, for example, improving war widows' pensions.
Having invoked the Parliament Act 1911, no less—it had not been used for 40 years—to force the Lords to accept the Bill, the Prime Minister is obviously reluctant to call a halt now. I hope that he will think again, and will come round to agreeing with a former Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, that a sponge should be drawn across the crimes and horrors of the past, for all the reasons that I have just given.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I am pleased to respond to the debate. I have noted the presence of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Sir C. Townsend), but my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood).
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath that I do not find his arguments about the War Crimes Act and its operation either attractive or convincing. My hon. Friend asked how I voted in relation to the measures that the House took. I think that the record will show that I voted in support of the legislation; I hope that that is the case, because that is how I feel.
The House supported the War Crimes Act on a free vote by an overwhelming majority, not only in 1990 but again in 1991. The House was fully aware that the gathering of evidence of alleged war crimes, including evidence from abroad, would be a lengthy and costly

process, given that the crimes were committed many years ago; but the House approved the legislation because of the enormity of the crimes, which cannot be diminished by the mere passage of time. The Act is about offences involving the killing of innocent people in horrendous circumstances, contrary to internationally accepted standards of civilised conduct. The House was determined to ensure that people in this country now suspected of such dreadful crimes should not be able to escape justice simply because they did not have British nationality during the second world war.
The Act is now part of the general criminal law and I must make it clear, lest there be any doubt, that the Government remain firmly committed to its purposes. The police and the prosecuting authorities can now follow up evidence that war crimes were committed by non-British nationals during the war, just as they can follow up evidence in other cases of murder and manslaughter, irrespective of the time that has passed or of whether the crimes were committed in Britain. The Act gives effect to the House's intention that persons against whom there is evidence of war crimes committed during the second world war may be brought to trial. There can be no case whatsoever for backtracking on that resolve or affording such people special protection by rendering the Act ineffective or inoperative.
I shall come to the question of investigations and prosecutions in a moment, but first it is worth recalling in a little more detail the background to the Act, what it is about and what the Government's policy on it is. The report of the war crimes inquiry, Command Paper 744, was presented to Parliament in July 1989. The inquiry was conducted, as my hon. Friend said, by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers at the request of the then Home Secretary. The inquiry had been appointed following allegations that persons at that time living in the United Kingdom had committed war crimes during the second world war. The inquiry was asked, inter alia, to obtain and examine relevant material relating to the allegations and to consider, in the light of the likely probative value in court proceedings of the relevant documentary material and the evidence of potential witnesses, whether the law of the United Kingdom should be amended to make it possible to prosecute such persons for war crimes.
The inquiry considered about 300 allegations and concluded that in at least three of them, there would be a realistic prospect of conviction for murder on the evidence available, were the jurisdiction of British courts to be widened so that residents of this country who had committed crimes abroad could be prosecuted, albeit that they were not British at the relevant time. The inquiry recommended that further investigations be made into those cases and into more than 120 other cases. The inquiry noted that little or no consideration had been given by successive British Governments to what might be done with war criminals in the UK for the simple reason that before the inquiry was set up, none had been thought to be in Britain. The inquiry made it clear that nothing in the policy or practice of successive Governments prevented taking action to bring war criminals to justice.
Against the background of the inquiry, and in line with its recommendations, the Government introduced to Parliament in March 1990 what became the War Crimes Act 1991. The purpose of the war crimes legislation was to give our courts jurisdiction
over murder, manslaughter


and culpable homicide committed as violations of the laws and customs of war during the second world war in Germany or German-held territory by people who are now British citizens or resident in the UK, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, irrespective of their nationality at the material time.
It is now therefore possible to prosecute for war crimes committed in Europe people who did not have British nationality at the time of the alleged offences. I emphasise that because our courts, as has been said, had jurisdiction over murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide committed abroad by British nationals by virtue of section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 6(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which was a consolidating statute incorporating the corresponding provision in section 29 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949.
Moreover, our courts already had jurisdiction over grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions, including wilful killing and torture, wherever in the world the offence was committed and whatever the nationality of the offender, by virtue of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, although that Act did not apply to grave breaches committed before it came into effect. The War Crimes Act did not therefore introduce any new principle concerning prosecuting for offences abroad irrespective of the nationality of the suspect.
I emphasise that the War Crimes Act did not create any new offences. Violations of the laws and customs of war have long been criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by this country and all other members of the community of civilised nations. The Act did not therefore criminalise conduct that was not already criminal by internationally recognised standards; it ensured that such conduct was triable by our courts.
The War Crimes Bill was approved by this House on a free vote by a large majority—273 votes to 60. It was then denied a Second Reading in another place, by 207 votes to 74. That was in June 1990. The Government reintroduced the Bill in identical form in this House in March 1991, where it was again approved by a large majority on a free vote, by 254 votes to 88. It was subsequently again denied a Second Reading in another place, by 131 votes to 109. The Bill was subsequently enacted, in May 1991, through the operation of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
I do not need to go into the detail of the debates on the Bill. Many of the arguments were anticipated by the war crimes inquiry. In particular, the inquiry had taken into account the ages of the alleged perpetrators of war crimes and the fact that the people involved had been living here for some considerable time. The inquiry was also aware of the additional manpower and resources that would be involved in investigating the allegations, and of the difficulties of bringing evidence before the courts. However, the inquiry said that those arguments were lacking when weighed in the balance against the alleged atrocities. The inquiry concluded:
The crimes committed are so monstrous that they cannot be condoned: their prosecution could act as a deterrent to others in future wars. To take no action would taint the United Kingdom with the slur of being a haven for war criminals …Financial constraints should not be allowed to obstruct the course of justice in relation to such serious charges".
The fact is that the War Crimes Act is now law. It came into effect in May 1991 and since then the police and prosecuting authorities have had clear responsibilities to

investigate and prosecute for war crimes, as appropriate, in the same way as with other allegations of murder and manslaughter. The Government's policy in relation to the Act is unequivocal. It is that those who committed the most terrible crimes in Nazi-occupied Europe during the second world war should not be allowed to use the privilege of residence in this country to escape justice.
I must emphasise that the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry was just that—an inquiry. It was not a criminal investigation. The investigations did not begin until the Act came into force. Inevitably, the investigations were going to take some time and be resource-intensive. As I have said, the inquiry recommended that investigations be undertaken in more than 120 cases. After the inquiry, the police received information about other cases which also required investigation. The investigations were also going to take time and be costly because the events concerned took place abroad, moreover a long time ago. All of this was, of course, known to the House during the passage of the War Crimes Act. In line with the House's expectations, the Government ensured that the police were appropriately resourced for what were likely to be difficult and protracted inquiries.
Since May 1991, the Metropolitan police war crimes unit has considered 376 cases. In 117 of those, the subject of the inquiries has been confirmed dead. In a further 253 cases, the evidence so far is insufficient for the purposes of prosecution and the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have agreed that no further action should be taken at this time. This is subject to the possibility of reopening cases should any further evidence come to light.
That leaves six cases, of which five are still under active consideration and investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service. They relate to allegations of murder or mass murder of Jewish and Soviet civilians in Belarus and Ukraine by persons who are now living in this country. In the remaining case, the defendant has been found by a jury to be unfit to stand trial. In order to bring the proceedings to an end, the Attorney-General entered a nolle prosequi.
Although the work load of the war crimes unit has inevitably fallen from its peak, because 376 cases have already been considered, the unit is still involved in investigating the five active cases that I have mentioned. In the past six months, members of the unit have made at least six visits to eastern Europe for the purposes of the investigations. Only last week, a member of the unit, accompanied by a CPS lawyer, returned from a visit to Belarus. So a number of chilling crimes which allegedly were committed during the war are still being thoroughly investigated.

Sir Cyril Townsend: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kirkhope: No, I will not. I am sorry; I have only a minute left.
We cannot be sure that when the five active cases have been completed, that will be the end of the investigations. There have been no new allegations for a year, but it is always possible that fresh allegations will be made or fresh evidence may emerge. It is also possible that war criminals will come to this country. In Canada,


64 suspects have been identified and they may be deported. If that occurs, it is possible that some of them may arrive in Britain as the last country of embarkation. The war crimes unit is closely monitoring the situation in consultation with the Canadian authorities.
I cannot comment on whether any further prosecutions are imminent or likely. That is a matter for the independent decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General.
The cost of investigations to the end of 1996 totals approximately £6 million for the Metropolitan police and approximately £2 million for the CPS. The expected cost of investigations for 1996–97 is about £630,000. Home Office special funding for the war crimes unit stopped in

1995, but the Metropolitan police will receive a total of £1.7 billion in 1997–98 for all their policing needs, including war crimes investigations.
A time bar on investigating and prosecuting war crimes raises a most important, indeed fundamental, point of principle. The fact is that in the United Kingdom we do not have a statutory time bar for laying charges of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide and this applies no less where such acts are committed as war crimes. To depart from this policy, making war crimes a special case, would be to set a most extraordinary precedent. I do not share my hon. Friend's concerns.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.